Bhalang Singh Phanbuh Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (CESTAT Kolkata)
The appeal arose from a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 08.11.2019 issued on the basis of details contained in Form 26AS of the appellant’s Income Tax Returns for the period 2014-15 to 2017-18. Invoking the extended period, the Department demanded Service Tax of Rs. 6,25,966/-. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground that it had been filed beyond the statutory period of 60 days and the additional condonable period of 30 days. The appellant challenged that order before the Tribunal.
On limitation relating to the filing of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant submitted that the Order-in-Original dated 14.08.2020 had been passed during the COVID period and was never received. According to the appellant, knowledge of the order came only after a bank account attachment order dated 27.09.2022. The appellant thereafter sought a copy of the order from the jurisdictional authorities through letters dated 25.11.2022 and 04.01.2023, filed a writ petition before the Meghalaya High Court, and subsequently submitted an RTI application on 23.02.2024. The Department supplied the Order-in-Original in response to the RTI, and the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed on 23.04.2024. The Tribunal observed that the appellant had consistently attempted to obtain the order and noted that there would have been no reason to approach the High Court if the order had already been received. Holding that the appeal had been filed within the prescribed period after receipt of the Order-in-Original, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)’ order dismissing the appeal on limitation.
