9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeared on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent - revenue. 4. Short facts of the case are that, petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Swastik Traders and engaged in the business of General Stores and registered with GST Department under the provisions of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 {hereinafter to be referred as 'CGST Act, 2017'}. The petitioner filed statutory GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B for the period of April - 2018 to March - 2019. However, the respondent department conducted GST Audit of the records of the petitioner and a show cause notice dated 31.03.2021 was issued to the petitioner by the respondent and GST demand was proposed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. 6. The appellate authority by order dated 23.04.2024 dismissed the appeal filed under Section 107 by offline mode as well as online by the petitioner on the ground that petitioner has not made the mandatory pre-deposit along with the offline appeal dated 20.01.2023 and online appeal filed by the petitioner on 13.04.2023 was beyond the time limit prescribed by law. The appellate authority further held that appeal ought to have been filed within a period of three months from the date of communication of order in original on 30.02.2022 and the delay up to the period of one month can be condoned by the appellate authority upon being satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the prescri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.2023, the petitioner could not have deposited the amount through GST DRC - 03 and pre-depositing amount could be paid by transferring the amount in the GST Electronic Cash Ledger only. He further submits that before 18.4.2023, the pre-deposit amount could be deposit through GST Electronic Cash Ledger. He submits that the appellate authority has failed to appreciate the fact that pre-deposit had already been made and therefore, the appeal ought to have been decided on merit. 9. Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent -revenue opposed the petition on the ground that appeal was not submitted within prescribed period. However, fairly accepted that before 18.04.2023, the pre-deposit could be made through G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er was uploaded on 17.01.2023 and therefore, the petitioner could not file the appeal through electronic mode earlier, therefore, petitioner has not committed any error in depositing Rs.82,000/- in his GST Electronic Cash Ledger and submitting the appeal through speed post. 11. In such circumstances, there was no failure on the part of petitioner in filing the appeal, within the prescribed period of limitation as well as depositing the mandatory amount in accordance with Section 107 (6b) of CGST Act, 2017. Merely, because the petitioner could not pay the mandatory amount through GST APL - 01 in the absence of uploading the Order in Original, petitioner cannot be held liable for transferring the amount in his GST Electronic Cash Ledger as n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
