TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1067
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng order No. 01/ODISHA-AAR/2024-25 dated 27.08.2024 pronounced by the Odisha Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR). The date of receipt of the appeal application is 05.05.2025. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: 3.1 The Appellant, M/s Essel Mining Industries Limited (GSTIN-21AAACE6607L1ZU), having principal place of business at Plot No. 7/43, Khata No. 244/122, Basantapur Talasahi, Dabuna, Kendujhar-758086, is engaged in the business of "Mining and Supply" of Iron and Manganese situated at Joda Mining sector of Kendujhar. The period of lease was from 01.10.1984 to 31.03.2020 (extended). After cessation of the lease on 31.03.2020, Govt. of Odisha awarded lease of the said mines to Odisha Mining Corporation or OMC in short, a State PSU, for mining. 3.2 After allocation of mines, OMC approached the appellant for acquiring capital assets including machineries & equipments, building infrastructure and the railway siding by way of purchases, which were developed by the appellant for their convenience of doing their business. The deed for handing over and taking over the building and civil structure and plant & machinery was made on 28.06.2023. 3.3 As per the deed, it was mutually agree....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Authority for Advance Ruling is to be filed within a period of 30 days from the date on which the ruling sought to be appealed against is communicated to the applicant; provided that the appellate authority may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by a sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the said period of thirty days, allow it to be presented within a further period not exceeding thirty days.". The order of AAR was communicated to the appellant on 28.08.2024 and the appeal was filed on 05.05.2025, i.e. after a lapse of 250 days of the communication of the AAR order. Therefore, it transpires that the appeal has not been filed within the prescribed time limit (and the extended time limit). 4. Personal Hearing: 4.1 The Odisha Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling provided personal hearing to the Applicant for representing their case through Video Conference on 19.08.2025. The Applicant attended the personal hearing through their authorized representative, Shri Narandra Kumar Dash, Advocate. During the personal hearing, the authorized representative submitted the following: • attention was drawn to clause 5 & 6 of Part X of lease ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on which the ruling sought to be appealed against is communicated to the applicant; provided that the appellate authority may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by a sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the said period of thirty days, allow it to be presented within a further period not exceeding thirty days.". In the instant case, the order of AAR was communicated to the appellant on 28.08.2024. The date of communication 28.08.2024 was declared by the appellant in application form and the same was also not disputed by the appellant. The appeal was filed on 05.05.2025, i.e. after a lapse of 250 days of the communication of the AAR order. Therefore, it transpires that the appeal has not been filed within the prescribed time limit and also within the extended time limit. However, the appellant has prayed for condonation of delay in filing appeal citing the following reasons: (i) That since the impugned order of AAR has been passed and communicated to the petitioner Company on 28.08.2024, the same had been forwarded to the Odisha Mining Corporation, a State PSU for taking necessary steps for release of GST amount for payment to Govt. exchequ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt or electronic issuance of a notice, order or certificate on the common portal shall, in respect of that process or procedure, include manual filing of the said application, intimation, reply, declaration, statement or issuance of the said notice, order or certificate in such Forms as appended to these rules." From above, it is seen that statute allows manual filing of an application, intimation, reply, declaration, statement, in respect of any process or procedure where reference to electronic filing has been prescribed. Accordingly, the appellant's claim that as the impugned order in this Appeal has not been uploaded in the Portal, they were in doubt, whether the order passed as such would have been filed Appeal Electronically or manually, is not tenable in view of the provisions of Rule as discussed above. 5.4 We also find that the appellant has placed reliance on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: (i) In the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding a matter relating to condonation of delay in reference to the Limitation Act, 1963 held in the following terms - ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeal has to be preferred within three months from the date of communication to him of the decision or order. However, if the Commissioner is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of 60 days, he can allow it to be presented within a further period of 30 days. In other words, this clearly shows that the appeal has to be filed within 60 days but in terms of the proviso further 30 days time can be granted by the appellate authority to entertain the appeal. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 35 makes the position crystal clear that the appellate authority has no power to allow the appeal to be presented beyond the period of 30 days. The language used makes the position clear that the legislature intended the appellate authority to entertain the appeal by condoning delay only upto 30 days after the expiry of 60 days which is the normal period for preferring appeal. Therefore, there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Commissioner and the High Court were therefore justified in holding that there was no power to condone the delay after the expiry of 30 days period." From th....