Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Service Tax

Exclude Appeal Duration Before Wrong Forum from Limitation Period: Allahabad HC

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2025 taxguru.in 2968
Case Name
Harshit Sanwal & Others Vs Commissioner of Central Goods And Service Tax and Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Advertisement

Harshit Sanwal & Others Vs Commissioner of Central Goods And Service Tax and Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi)

The CESTAT Delhi addressed an appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals)’s order that dismissed the original appeal as time-barred. The core issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal before the correct Commissioner (Appeals) could be condoned. The appellant’s counsel argued that they received the original order along with a covering letter stating the appeal lay before the Commissioner (Appeal, Meerut – First). Based on this official communication, the appellant bonafidely filed the appeal in Meerut. Subsequently, they were informed that the correct jurisdiction for appeals from their region (Haldwani) had shifted to Dehradun. After their request for internal transfer of the appeal was denied, they filed the appeal in Dehradun. The appellant contended that the time spent pursuing the appeal in the wrong forum due to incorrect official guidance should be excluded when calculating the limitation period.

The CESTAT, relying on the principle of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in P. Steel Corporation vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, agreed with the appellant. The Tribunal noted that Section 14, which promotes the cause of justice, allows for the exclusion of time spent on proceedings pursued bonafidely and with due diligence that ultimately fail on merits. In this case, the appellant acted reasonably by filing the appeal as directed by the covering letter accompanying the original order. The delay in responding to the appellant’s query regarding pre-deposit by the department also contributed to the overall time taken. The Tribunal concluded that the time spent pursuing the appeal in Meerut should be excluded. Consequently, when this exclusion was applied, the appeal filed in Dehradun was found to be within the permissible limitation period. The CESTAT set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)’s order and remanded the matter for a decision on its merits.

FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT DELHI ORDER

Paid content

Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Sandeep Kanoi
Qualification: CA in Job / Business
Company: Taxguru Consultancy
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra
Articles Published: 20,146

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.