9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 904 - HC - GSTDismissal of appeal on the ground of time limitation - explanation for the delay not properly considered - HELD THAT - It would transpire that the original order passed by the proper officer on 28th March 2024 for the tax period from 1st April 2018 to 31st March 2019 was based on a show cause which was not responded to by the petitioner. The explanation given by the petitioner and the challenge to such order is yet to be tested out as the matter was also not adjudicated by the appellate authority since the same was barred by limitation. Today the petitioner has approached this Court insisting that the petitioner has a statutory remedy. The petitioner has been prevented from availing the same by reason of the appellate tribunal not being constituted. Having regard thereto ordinarily this Court would be required to hear out this matter on merits however since the matter concerns computation of tax if the matter is heard by the appellate authority at the first instance it will be far more convenient to decide the factual issues considering the fact that the records are available on the portal which can be directly assessed by the appellate authority on the contrary for this Court to decide the matter the entire records which are only available electronically on the portal would be required to be downloaded for being produced. Conclusion - In the fitness of things and considering the marginal delay it would be proper to remand the matter back to the appellate authority for adjudication on merit. In the fitness of things and considering the marginal delay it would be proper to remand the matter back to the appellate authority for adjudication on merit - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Validity of dismissal of appeal on limitation grounds without proper consideration of explanation for delay The relevant legal framework is Section 107 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017, which governs appeals against orders passed under the Act. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal due to a 47-day delay in filing, without adequately considering the petitioner's explanation. The Court noted that the explanation for delay was submitted but not properly examined by the appellate authority. The petitioner cited lack of knowledge about computer operations and illness in the family as reasons for delay in responding to the show cause notice. Precedents emphasize that limitation periods are to be strictly adhered to but courts and authorities must also consider genuine explanations for delay, especially when the delay is marginal and the explanation plausible. The appellate authority's failure to consider the explanation was therefore found to be inappropriate. Applying the law to the facts, the Court found that the marginal delay of 47 days and the reasons provided warranted reconsideration on merits rather than outright dismissal on limitation grounds. Competing arguments included the State's submission that the order did not suffer from irregularity and that the appellate tribunal is yet to be constituted. The Court balanced these by acknowledging the procedural lapse but also the practical difficulties faced by the petitioner. The conclusion was that the appellate authority's order dated 3rd January 2025 was liable to be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication on merits. Issue 2: Effect of non-constitution of appellate tribunal on petitioner's statutory remedy The CGST/WBGST Act contemplates appeals to the appellate tribunal. However, the tribunal was not yet constituted, effectively denying the petitioner the statutory forum for appeal. The Court recognized that ordinarily, the petitioner should approach the appellate tribunal, but since it was not in existence, the petitioner was compelled to approach the High Court by way of writ petition. The Court observed that while it would have preferred the matter to be heard by the appellate authority first, the absence of the tribunal necessitated judicial intervention to protect the petitioner's rights. The Court's reasoning emphasized the importance of statutory remedies and the need to ensure they are not rendered illusory by administrative delays in constitution of authorities. Ultimately, the Court remanded the matter to the appellate authority, directing it to decide the appeal on merits expeditiously once constituted, thereby preserving the petitioner's statutory right of appeal. Issue 3: Justification for attachment of petitioner's bank account despite pre-deposit The petitioner's bank account was attached by the authorities presumably to recover the disputed tax demand. The petitioner had already made the pre-deposit of Rs.58,903/- as required for maintaining the appeal. The Court noted that such attachment could not be allowed to continue in view of the pre-deposit and the remand of the appeal for fresh adjudication. The Court directed that if the petitioner filed an application before the appellate authority for release of the bank account, the authority should hear and decide the application within one week before proceeding with the appeal hearing. This direction balanced the State's interest in recovery with the petitioner's right against undue hardship and ensured procedural fairness. Issue 4: Whether the Court should entertain writ petition despite alternative remedy Generally, the existence of an alternative statutory remedy precludes writ jurisdiction. However, the Court found that since the appellate tribunal was not constituted, the petitioner was effectively deprived of the statutory remedy. Therefore, the Court entertained the writ petition to prevent denial of justice and to ensure the petitioner's rights were protected pending constitution of the appellate authority. This approach aligns with established principles that writ jurisdiction is available when statutory remedies are not efficacious or available. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held:
Core principles established include:
Final determinations:
|
