Monday, 13, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

M/S. Sunder Synthetics Pvt Ltd vs The Union Of India
2024 Latest Caselaw 2066 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 2066 Tel
Judgement Date : 6 June, 2024

Telangana High Court

M/S. Sunder Synthetics Pvt Ltd vs The Union Of India on 6 June, 2024

            THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                              AND
     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

                  WRIT PETITION No.13172 of 2024

ORDER:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Sujoy Paul)

Sri M.Umashankar, learned counsel, appears for the petitioner

and Ms.B.Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC.

2. With the consent, finally heard.

3. The singular point involved in this case is whether respondent

No.3 was justified in passing the impugned order dated 28.03.2024

whereby appeal of petitioner was dismissed without entering into

the merits of the case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner by taking this Court to the

provisional acknowledgment for submission of form of appeal, dated

24.07.2021 (Page No.53) and Paragraph Nos.8 and 9 of impugned

order submits that there is no iota of doubt that the petitioner filed

his appeal on 24.07.2021. Page No.1 of 'running index' shows that

the appeal stood 'admitted' on 24.07.2021 itself. An admitted

appeal should have been decided on merits and should not have

been thrown overboard on a hyper technical ground that petitioner

has filed the certified copy of the impugned order manually on

22.09.2023. This aspect is squarely covered by the judgments of

Allahabad High Court in M/s.Enkay Polymers Versus State of U.P.

and 2 others 1, Visible Alpha Solutions India Private Limited

Versus Commissioner, CGST Appeals, Noida and another 2 and

M/s. Jai Prakash Shiv Charan Bidi through its Proprietor Shri

Jai Prakash Sahu Versus Commissioner, Commercial Taxex

and another 3, Rajasthan High Court in Prakash Purohit S/o.

Shir Ranu Singh Versus the Commissioner, Central Goods and

Service Tax, Jaipur, the Additional Commissioner (Appeals),

Central Goods and Service Tax, Jodhpur, the Assistant

Commissioner, Circle-A-Pali-Ward-I, Central goods and Service

Tax Office, Pali 4 and Madras High Court in Doosan Infracore

India Private Limited, versus the Assistant Commissioner,

Office of the Commissioner of ST and Central Excise, Chennai 5.

Thus, the impugned order may be set aside and respondent No.3

may be directed to decide the appeal on merits.

5. In addition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in

fact there is no necessity in the present era to file hard copy and

certified copy of the impugned order. The impugned order was

already uploaded on 22.07.2021 and therefore, respondent No.3 had

2024(5) TMI 917 - Allahabad High Court

2024 (2) TMI - Allahabad High Court

2024 (4) TMI 418 - Allahabad High Court

2022 (11) TMI 742 - Rajasthan High Court

2020 (8) TMI 138 - Madras High Court

the order before him. The petitioner's appeal is dismissed on a

hyper technical reason which cannot sustain judicial scrutiny.

6. Ms.B.Sapna Reddy, Ms.B.Sapna Reddy, learned Senior

Standing Counsel for CBIC, opposed the prayer and supported the

impugned order.

7. A perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner shows that

the appeal was filed on 24.07.2021 and it was admitted on the same

date. The "admission" means it is admitted for final hearing. We

find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner

that when the impugned order itself was uploaded on 22.07.2021,

the petitioner's appeal should not have been dismissed on the

ground that physical certified copy is not filed on the said date and

it was indeed filed at a later point of time in the month of

September, 2023. Allahabad High Court in M/s.Enkay Polymers's

case (supra) has already taken this view.

8. In this view of the matter, we are unable to give our stamp of

approval to the order dated 28.03.2024 and deem it proper to set

aside the same and direct respondent No.3 to decide the appeal on

merits. The parties undertake to appear before him on 01.07.2024.

Separate notices shall not be required to the parties for the next

date of hearing. Respondent No.3 shall consider and decide the

appeal, in accordance with law, on merits.

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.

________________ SUJOY PAUL, J

_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J

6th June, 2024 ns/prn

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Media

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter