Page 78 - GSTL_21st May 2020_Vol 36_Part 3

324 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
respondent in fact became aware about the existence of the assessment order
dated 21-6-2017. On the other hand, in the affidavit of Mr. Sreedhar Routh, Site
Director of the respondent-company (filed in support of the application for con-
donation of delay before the appellate authority), it is stated that the company
became aware about the irregularities committed by its erring official (Mr. P.
Sriram Murthy) in the month of July, 2018, which pre-supposes that the respond-
ent must have become aware about the assessment order, at least in July, 2018. In
the same affidavit, it is asserted that the respondent-company was not aware
about the assessment order, as it was not brought to its notice by the employee
concerned due to his negligence. The respondent in the writ petition has averred
that the appeal was rejected by the appellate authority on the ground that it had
no power to condone the delay beyond 30 days, when in fact, the order examines
the cause set out by the respondent and concludes that the same was unsubstan-
tiated by the respondent. That finding has not been examined by the High Court
in the impugned judgment and order at all, but the High Court was more im-
pressed by the fact that the respondent was in a position to offer some explana-
tion about the discrepancies in respect of the volume of turnover and that the
respondent had already deposited 12.5% of the additional amount in terms of the
previous order passed by it. That reason can have no bearing on the justification
for non-filing of the appeal within the statutory period. Notably, the respondent
had relied on the affidavit of the Site Director and no affidavit of the concerned
employee (P. Sriram Murthy, Deputy Manager-Finance) or at least the other em-
ployee [Siddhant Belgaonker, Senior Manager (Finance)], who was associated
with the erring employee during the relevant period, has been filed in support of
the stand taken in the application for condonation of delay. Pertinently, no find-
ing has been recorded by the High Court that it was a case of violation of princi-
ples of natural justice or non-compliance of statutory requirements in any man-
ner. Be that as it may, since the statutory period specified for filing of appeal had
expired long back in August, 2017 itself and the appeal came to be filed by the
respondent only on 24-9-2018, without substantiating the plea about inability to
file appeal within the prescribed time, no indulgence could be shown to the re-
spondent at all.
20. Reverting to the contention that the respondent having failed to as-
sail the order passed by the appellate authority, dated 25-10-2018 rejecting the
application for condonation of delay, the assessment order passed by the Assis-
tant Commissioner, dated 21-6-2017 stood merged, need not detain us in view of
the exposition of this Court in Raja Mechanical Company Private Limited v. Commis-
sioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I [(2012) 12 SCC 613 = 2013 (29) S.T.R. 81 (S.C.) =
2012 (279) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.)]. It is well settled that rejection of delay application by
the appellate forum does not entail in merger of the assessment order with that
order.
21. Taking any view of the matter, therefore, the High Court ought not
to have entertained the subject writ petition filed by the respondent herein. The
same deserved to be rejected at the threshold.
22. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court and dismiss the writ petition.
There shall be no order as to costs. Pending interlocutory applications, if any,
shall stand disposed of.

______
GST LAW TIMES  21st May 2020  78