Revival of statutory appeals permitted with restraint on raising limitation or pre-deposit; refunds and interpretation affidavit allowed.

Petitioners may file revival/restoration applications for statutory appeals within a prescribed short period; while Special Leave Petitions remain pending, appellate authorities and the Department are restrained from raising delay/limitation or pre deposit objections when considering those restoration applications. Petitioners are entitled to seek refunds of cash payments and excess recoveries by appropriate applications to the competent forum. Respondents must file an affidavit setting out the instructions for interpreting the identified provisions and related circulars and notification. Respondents may also apply for restoration without facing limitation objections at the appellate stage.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether petitioners may be permitted to file applications before the appellate authority for revival/restoration of their statutory appeals pending disposal of the Special Leave Petitions; (ii) Whether the appellate authority or the Department may be permitted to raise the issue of delay/limitation or requirement of pre-deposit while considering such restoration applications; (iii) Whether petitioners may seek reliefs regarding refund of cash payments or excess recovery; (iv) Whether respondents should be directed to furnish an affidavit on the interpretation of Sections 49 and 107 of the Act read with specified circulars, instructions and Notification No. 53/2023-Central Tax dated 02.11.2023; (v) Whether respondents may seek restoration of the statutory appeal and if so whether limitation may be raised by the appellate authority.

Issue (i): Whether petitioners may be permitted to file applications before the appellate authority for revival/restoration of their statutory appeals pending disposal of the Special Leave Petitions.

Analysis: The Court considered the pendency of the Special Leave Petitions and a relevant Patna High Court order and granted leave to the petitioners to make applications before the concerned appellate authority for revival of their appeals, imposing a time limit for filing such applications.

Conclusion: Petitioners are permitted to file applications for revival/restoration of their appeals within two weeks.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate authority or the Department may raise the issue of delay/limitation or requirement of pre-deposit in considering such restoration applications.

Analysis: The Court directed that, while the Special Leave Petitions remain pending and in light of the interim orders, the appellate authority and the Department shall not raise issues of delay in filing the appeals or the requirement of pre-deposit when considering the restoration applications filed by the petitioners.

Conclusion: The appellate authority and the Department shall not raise the issues of delay/limitation or pre-deposit in respect of the restoration applications filed by the petitioners.

Issue (iii): Whether petitioners may seek reliefs for refund of cash payments and refund of excess amounts recovered.

Analysis: The Court afforded liberty to the petitioners to make appropriate applications seeking refund of cash payments and refund of any excess amounts recovered, leaving consideration of such applications to the appropriate forum.

Conclusion: Petitioners are at liberty to apply for refunds of cash payments and excess recovery.

Issue (iv): Whether respondents should be directed to file an affidavit on the interpretation of Sections 49 and 107 of the Act read with specified circulars, instructions and Notification No. 53/2023-Central Tax dated 02.11.2023.

Analysis: The Court required the respondents to give instructions regarding the interpretation to be given to Sections 49 and 107 of the Act read with the clarification circular dated 06.07.2022, instructions dated 28.10.2022 and Notification No. 53/2023-Central Tax dated 02.11.2023, and to file an affidavit setting out such instructions.

Conclusion: Respondents shall file an affidavit stating the instructions to be given to the identified provisions and instruments.

Issue (v): Whether respondents may seek restoration of the statutory appeal and whether limitation may be raised in that context.

Analysis: The Court reserved liberty for the respondents to move for restoration of the statutory appeal by making appropriate application, and directed that if such an application is made the appellate authority shall not raise the issue of limitation.

Conclusion: Respondents may apply for restoration of the statutory appeal and the appellate authority shall not raise limitation in that application.

Final Conclusion: The Court granted interim, procedural reliefs permitting mutual restoration applications and refund applications, and directed restraint on raising limitation or pre-deposit objections while preserving the underlying Special Leave Petitions for final adjudication; the matters are listed for further hearing.

---