2024 (6) TMI 1167

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ioner is impugning an order dated 21st September 2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, respondent no. 2 and an order dated 25th January 2021 passed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, respondent no. 3 and issued on 27th January 2021. 3. Against the order passed by respondent no. 2, petitioner had preferred an appeal before respondent no. 3 who rejected the appeal on the grounds that the appeal ought to have been filed within three months with a provision to extend by one month upon sufficient cause being shown but the appeal was filed about 29 days late and hence, barred by limitation. Respondent no. 3 has noted that he did not have power to extend the time limit after the extendable one month pe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... supply the deficient documents. There are averments in the petition that petitioner's representative went twice and on the first occasion petitioner was informed that the concerned officer had gone for training and on the second visit, petitioner was simply handed over copy of the impugned order. There are averments in paragraph 4.11 and paragraph 4.12 of the petition. In the affidavit in reply, these facts have been denied. We do not wish to go into this aspect at this time because no assessee, who is entitled to a large sum of Rs. 17,52,468/-, will not submit the further documents called for. 9. We note that the impugned order does not disclose why the refund application has been rejected. Further, the impugned order dated 21st Septem....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed within 90 days of the rejection order. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 11. We could not blame respondent no. 3 because he did not have the power to condone this delay but we have. Our judicial conscience does not permit us to reject this cause shown as bogus particularly in view of the fact that petitioner was an individual and the GST regime was at a nascent stage. Moreover, in both the orders impugned in the petitions there is no whisper about the merits of the application. 12. In the circumstances, we hereby quash and set aside the order dated 21st September 2019 passed by respondent no. 2 and order dated 25th January 2021 passed by respondent no. 3 and issued on 27th January 2021. 13. The matter is remanded to respondent no. 2 for d....