CESTAT order Passed after 2 Years from Decision Date: Bombay HC quashes Order on Grounds of Order Delivered Belatedly [Read Order]

In an important ruling, the Bombay High Court has quashed an order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, after finding that the order was delivered nearly two years after the date of hearing and date of decision.

As to the department’s contention that the petitioner ought to pursue an alternate remedy, the Court dismissed the plea, holding that the availability of such a remedy does not bar judicial intervention where the impugned order suffers from patent flaws.

The writ petition was filed by M/s. Himachal Futuristic Communication Ltd., against an Order-in-Original passed on 30 July 2007 by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Panaji-Goa.

The appeal was heard by the CESTAT on 19 December 2022, and the records reflected the decision date as the same day. However, the certified copy forwarded to the appellant revealed that the order was actually pronounced only on 28 August 2024 almost two years later.

The Revenue’s counsel, Ms. Asha Desai, did not dispute this delay before the High Court.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Ashish S. Chavan observed that such belated delivery of judgment vitiates the order itself. Without going into the merits of the substantive issues raised by the petitioner, the Court held that the delay alone was sufficient ground to quash the CESTAT’s order.

The court said that “In the wake of this undisputed position, when there is a huge delay in passing of the order by the CESTAT and though it is specifically contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the relevant point has not been taken into consideration, without going into the same, merely on the ground of delay, we are constrained to quash the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Tribunal for its fresh consideration.”

The judges remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, directing it to examine all grounds raised by the petitioner and to decide the appeal forthwith.

The respondents argued that the petitioner had an alternate statutory remedy, but the Court rejected this contention.

The high court said that the existence of an alternate remedy cannot prevent the Court from intervening in cases where orders are patently flawed. Here, the Court found defects on two counts: firstly, violation of natural justice, and secondly, the unacceptable delay in delivering the judgment.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the order was quashed.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates