Image
Case Details: Siddhi Developers Versus Joint Commissioner, Central GST, Pune (2025) 32 Centax 283 (Bom.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain, JJ.
- S/Shri Rupesh Kumar, Sr. Adv., N. Venkatraman, A.S.G., Navanjay Mahapatra, Dhruv Sharma, Ms Anamika Agrawal, Advs. & Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, for the Petitioner.
Facts of the Case
The Appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) under the Finance Act, 1994, which was dismissed on the ground of limitation. The appeal was admittedly filed more than three months after the original order was communicated to the Appellant. As per sub-section (3A) of Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, an appeal is required to be filed within two months from the date of receipt of the decision or order, which period may be extended by one month on sufficient cause being shown. The Appellant contended that the delay in filing the appeal ought to have been condoned, and referred to Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal was also approached, and it considered whether it could condone the delay or direct the Commissioner (Appeals) to do so. The Commissioner (Appeals), however, invoked the bar of limitation under the proviso to Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 and dismissed the appeal, and the matter was accordingly placed before the Bombay High Court.
High Court Held
The Bombay High Court held that the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in dismissing the appeal by invoking the bar of limitation, as he lacked power to condone delay beyond the maximum period of three months. It was observed that the Appellant could not bypass or circumvent the clear and unambiguous provisions of sub-section (3A) of Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 by reference to Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court further held that the provision under Section 35B(5) applies only to appeals presented before the Tribunal, not to those before the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the Tribunal, by exercising its powers under Section 35C(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, could neither itself condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) nor direct the Commissioner (Appeals) to do so. The Tribunal was therefore justified in finding no fault with the Commissioner (Appeals)’s order.
List of Cases Cited
- Abhyudaya Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Union of India — W.P. (L) No. 4053 of 2020, decided on 25-2-2021 by Bombay High Court — Relied on [Paras 7, 18, 20]
- Assistant Commissioner v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited — 2020 (36) G.S.T.L. 305 (S.C.) — Relied on [Paras 7, 18, 20]
