2020 (9) TMI 880 - HC - GST

Maintainability of appeal - learned Single Judge has only relegated the appellant to appear before the Assessing Officer and submit their application and the Assessing Officer was directed to forward such application to the Nodal Officer, who in turn would forward it to the concerned Grievance Committee - HELD THAT - Since the learned Single Judge has only directed the appellant to raise their grievance before the Nodal Officer/Nodal Committee, there is nothing to interfere with the said order by the Division Bench in the present intra court appeal. The case of the Assessee is admittedly pending before the learned Commissioner of Appeals as of now. Therefore, any observation on the merits of the case is likely to prejudice the case of the parties before us, either the assessee or the Revenue. Therefore, we decline to make any observation on the merits of the case. This writ appeal is disposed off by relegating the appellant before the learned Commissioner of Appeals, where the appeal is pending and we expect, the said Authority to decide the appeal in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the sides, as expeditiously as possible - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Direction to appoint Nodal Officer for State of Tamil Nadu
2. Submission of applications by Assessees
3. Appeal pending before Commissioner of Appeals
4. Intervention by Division Bench
5. Observations on merits of the case

Analysis:

1. The judgment addressed the direction to appoint a Nodal Officer for the State of Tamil Nadu. The learned Single Judge had directed the respective Commissioner of GST and Central Excise to appoint the Nodal Officer within two weeks. The process involved submission of applications by Assessees in accordance with a Circular, which would then be forwarded to the Nodal Officer for consideration by the Grievance Committee.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that the case of the Assessee was different as certain orders had been passed against them. The appeal was pending before the Commissioner of Appeals, and the Appellate Authority was requested to decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with the law. On the other hand, the Department's counsel contended that the Single Judge had not made any adverse observations against the Assessee, and the matter was appropriately referred to the Nodal Officer and Nodal Committee.

3. The judgment highlighted the issue of the appeal pending before the Commissioner of Appeals. The Division Bench declined to make any observations on the merits of the case to avoid prejudicing either party. The decision was made to relegate the appellant back to the Commissioner of Appeals for a fair and expeditious decision after providing an opportunity for both sides to present their case.

4. The Division Bench considered the intervention in the judgment by the Division Bench unnecessary since the Single Judge had directed the appellant to address their grievances through the designated channels. The Division Bench found no grounds for interference in the Single Judge's order and emphasized the importance of allowing the pending appeal process to proceed without any premature observations on the case's merits.

5. The judgment concluded by disposing of the writ appeal without any costs and closed the related miscellaneous petition. The focus was on ensuring a fair and lawful resolution of the appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals without prejudicing either party's position. The decision aimed to maintain procedural fairness and avoid any premature conclusions on the case's merits.