Facts of the Case

Md Mukimuddin's appeal against a CGST order was rejected by the Appellate Authority-cum-Additional Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Central Excise & Customs, Guwahati by order dated 22.03.2023, on the ground that it was time-barred. The original order under appeal had been passed by the Superintendent, Zone-8, Imphal East, Thoubal & Kakching District, State of Manipur. The petitioner explained that an internet ban in Manipur had prevented him from filing the appeal before the local authorities, compelling him to approach the appellate authority at Guwahati instead. He then filed this writ petition before the Gauhati High Court against the limitation-based rejection.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the Gauhati High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to an appellate order concerning an original order passed by an authority in Manipur.
  2. Whether the internet-ban justification for the delay in filing the appeal warranted interference.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner could not file the appeal in Imphal due to the internet ban and was compelled to file it at Guwahati.
  • The appellate authority ought to have condoned the resulting delay rather than reject the appeal as time-barred.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Commissioner of Income Tax-I v. M/s Balak Capital Pvt. Ltd. (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 982), approving Principal CIT-I, Chandigarh v. ABC Papers Ltd. (2002) 9 SCC 1, jurisdiction lies only with the High Court within whose territory the original adjudicating authority is situated — here, Manipur.
  • The same principle governing Income Tax Act Section 260A appeals applied to this case.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court recorded a prima facie view that the ratio in ABC Papers Ltd. would apply to this case as well.
  • At that stage, the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the High Court of Judicature at Manipur.
  • The Court allowed the prayer and disposed of the petition as withdrawn, with liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court.

Important Clarification

No finding was recorded on the correctness of the limitation-based rejection of the appeal itself — that question remains open for the Manipur High Court (or the appellate authority) to decide. The practical takeaway is jurisdictional: a challenge to an appellate order concerning a GST assessment ordinarily has to be filed before the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the original adjudicating authority is situated, not wherever the appellate authority happens to sit.

Sections Involved

  • Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — Section 107 (appeal to Appellate Authority)
  • Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 260A, cited only for the jurisdictional principle by analogy
  • Constitution of India — Article 226 (writ jurisdiction)

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of on withdrawal, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the matter before the High Court of Judicature at Manipur — no decision on merits.

Case Details

  • Court: Gauhati High Court (Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)
  • Case No.: WP(C)/5180/2023
  • CNR: GAHC010198732023
  • Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Suman Shyam
  • Date: 18.09.2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.