Case Law Details
Simla Holdings Vs Assistant Commissioner Central Tax Division Rohini (Delhi High Court)
Introduction: The case of Simla Holdings Vs Assistant Commissioner Central Tax Division Rohini before the Delhi High Court revolves around the petitioner’s inability to file an appeal against a GST order due to non-communication of the order. Despite facing proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act of 2002, the petitioner asserts that the order was not uploaded on the common portal, hindering its access to legal recourse.
Detailed Analysis: The petitioner contends that the order, dated 16.06.2023, affirming the demand against them, was not communicated as per standard procedure via upload on the common portal. With their office premises sealed due to ongoing proceedings, even physical copies of the order were inaccessible. While a copy was obtained from the respondent’s office, it was deemed insufficient for filing an appeal.
The court, while acknowledging the petitioner’s predicament, directed the respondents to upload the order on the common portal. This directive aimed to facilitate the petitioner’s access to legal recourse by treating the date of upload as the commencement of the limitation period for filing an appeal. Notably, the court refrained from adjudicating on the merits of the case, preserving the parties’ rights and contentions.
Conclusion: The Delhi High Court’s directive in the Simla Holdings case underscores the importance of procedural fairness and accessibility to legal remedies. By ordering the upload of the GST order on the common portal, the court ensures that the petitioner’s right to appeal is safeguarded despite challenges in communication. This decision highlights the judiciary’s commitment to upholding due process and enabling equitable access to justice in matters concerning tax disputes.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 16.06.2023 affirming the demand against the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is constrained to file an appeal for the reason that the order is not communicated to it. He submits that order is normally communicated by being uploaded on the common portal. Subject order has not been uploaded on the common portal. He further submits that since the petitioner is facing proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act of 2002, office premises of the petitioner has been sealed and even physical copy of the order has not been received by it, if sent by the Department. He submits that this copy annexed to the petition was obtained from the office of the respondents, however, for the purposes of filing an appeal, the same would not constitute a valid service.
3. Issue notice. Mr. Harpreet Singh, learned Senior Standing Counsel, accepts notice. He raises a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the subject petition and submits that petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal.
4. In view of the said objection, this petition is disposed of directing the respondents to upload order dated 16.06.2023 on the common portal. On said order being uploaded, it would be open to the petitioner to avail of the alternative remedy of filing an appeal in accordance with law. For the purposes of limitation, the date when the order is uploaded on the common portal shall be treated as the date of commencement of period of limitation for the purposes of filing the appeal.
5. Petition is disposed of in above terms. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor commented on the merits of contentions raised by either party.
6. All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved
Author Bio
