Appeal Allowed After Tribunal Finds Clerical Error; Public Sector Undertaking's Appeal Deemed Timely Under Section 5 The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, finding that the appellant, a Public Sector Undertaking, demonstrated no lack of ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Appeal Allowed After Tribunal Finds Clerical Error; Public Sector Undertaking's Appeal Deemed Timely Under Section 5
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, finding that the appellant, a Public Sector Undertaking, demonstrated no lack of diligence in filing their appeal within the permissible period. It recognized a clerical error on the part of the Department's receiving clerk and ruled that the appeal was timely. The case was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further proceedings, instructing the appellant to appear within 60 days for a hearing on the merits.
Issues involved: Refund claim rejection under Section 11 B read with Section 142(3) of the GST Act, 2017; Appeal filed beyond the limitation period due to clerical error.
Refund Claim Rejection: The appellant, a Public Sector Undertaking, filed a refund claim of Rs. 13,13,638/- which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner citing ineligibility under Section 11 B read with Section 142(3) of the GST Act, 2017.
Appeal Beyond Limitation Period: The appellant filed an appeal within the 60-day limitation period against the rejection. Due to a clerical error, the appeal was mistakenly presented at the wrong counter. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as filed beyond the limitation period, considering the re-filing date as the date of representation instead of the original filing date.
Appellant's Arguments: The appellant contended that the appeal was filed within the condonable 60-day period, and any error in filing was not due to lack of diligence. Citing Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the appellant argued that time taken in pursuing litigation before a wrong forum should be excluded for limitation calculation.
Revenue's Response: The Authorized Representative for the Revenue supported the impugned order, emphasizing the need for the appellant to be careful and diligent in filing the appeal at the correct counter.
Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal found no lack of diligence on the part of the appellant in filing the appeal. It noted constructive error or negligence on the part of the receiving clerk in the Department for not guiding the appellant correctly. The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed within the proper time as permitted by law and set aside the impugned order, remanding the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further proceedings.
Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the appellant to appear before the Commissioner (Appeals) within 60 days for a hearing on the merits of the case.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
