Order Date – 26 April 2024

Parties: Pramod Kumar Tomar (Prop. M/s Paramount Steel) Vs Assistant Commissioner Mundka Division Delhi West, CentralGoods And Service Tax & Anr

Facts –

• The Petitioner, Pramod Kumar Tomar (Prop. M/s Paramount Steel), on the online portal uploaded an appeal along with Order-in-Original on 12.11.2022 against the impugned the Order-in-Original dated 12.08.2022.
• The appeal was rejected due to delayed by one day.

Issue –

• Whether the appeal is filed within the due date?

Order –

• The Divisional Bench of Hon’ble High Court observed that in terms of Section 12 (1) of the Limitation Act, in computing the period of limitation for an appeal, the day from which such period is to be reckoned, is to be excluded. Further, in terms of Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, in computing the period of limitation, the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced, is also to be excluded.
• Accordingly, even if it is assumed that the order was uploaded/communicated on the day it was signed i.e. 12.08.2022, said date of 12.08.2022 is to be excluded while computing the period of limitation. Accordingly, the period of three months is to commence from 13.08.2022. Thus petitioner was liable to file the appeal by 12.11.2022. It is an admitted position that the appeal was filed alongwith a copy of the order, through the on-line mode on 12.11.2022, i.e. within the period of three months.
• Consequently, it is held that the appeal was within time and the impugned order erroneously rejects the appeal on the ground of limitation.