2021 (2) TMI 337 - HC - GST

Maintainability of appeal - non-deposit of 1% of the court fees as per the KLBF - period April 2018 to May 2019 - HELD THAT - Section 107 of CGST Act 2017 deals with appeals to Appellate Authority. Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act can prefer an appeal to the designated appellate authority, within three months from the date on which such decision or order is communicated to him. The Appellate Authority, by virtue of Sub Section (4) of Section 107 of the Act is empowered to condone further delay of one month causing filing appeal provided sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation is demonstrated. Thus, after further period of one month, the delay in preferring the appeal is not condonable. Bare perusal of this provision of CGST Act makes it clear that after making the assessment on the criteria best of the judgment by the Assessing Officer, a notice is required to be issued to the assessee along with the assessment order. The assessee is granted an opportunity of filing his returns. If such registered person furnishes valid returns in response to the best of the judgment assessment, then such assessment order is deemed to have been withdrawn. In the case in hand, despite receipt of assessment order under Section 62 of the Act, the petitioner registered person has not filed any valid return within 30 days from the receipt of the assessment order. This ultimately has resulted in issuance of demand notice in FORM GST DRC-07, mentioning the amount due and payable by the petitioner - The appeal as it stands is an appeal challenging the assessment made by the Assessing Officer to the best of his judgment as per the provisions of Section 62 of the GST Act. That assessment order is not deemed to have been withdrawn due to non-filing of valid return within 30 days of service of the assessment order under Section 62 of the Act. As such, it cannot be said that the appeals filed by the petitioner were in fact the appeals challenging the demand notice in FORM GST DRC-07. EVen during pendency of this appeals (Ext.P4), no amendment application was moved to delete the challenge so far as the Assessment Officer in order in FORM GST ASMT-13 is concerned or to incorporate the challenge to the orders in FORM GST DRC-07. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Challenge to appellate order under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act.
2. Non-filing of monthly returns under the GST Act.
3. Assessment orders under Section 62 of the CGST Act.
4. Appeal process under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
5. Interpretation of appealable orders under the GST Act.
6. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
7. Legal provisions related to assessment of non-filers of returns.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the appellate order rejecting appeals filed due to limitation and non-deposit of court fees under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. The petitioner argued that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer were not appealable, and the final order was in FORM GST DRC-07. The petitioner contended that the appeals were within limitation, except for one, which could be condoned. The Appellate Authority was criticized for rejecting the appeal based on delay and non-payment of court fees.

2. The petitioner failed to file monthly returns prescribed under the GST Act for a specific period, leading to the Assessing Officer passing orders under Section 62 of the GST Act. The petitioner's counsel highlighted the orders and subsequent appeal filings, emphasizing that the orders under Section 62 were not appealable, and the final order was in FORM GST DRC-07. The petitioner's argument focused on the timely filing of returns to withdraw the assessment orders.

3. The legal provisions under Section 107 of the CGST Act were discussed, outlining the process for appealing decisions or orders under the Act. The Appellate Authority could condone a delay of one month beyond the prescribed three-month period for filing an appeal, provided sufficient cause was demonstrated. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory timelines for filing appeals.

4. The interpretation of appealable orders under the GST Act was a crucial aspect of the case. The Government Pleader highlighted Section 62 of the GST Act, stating that only the assessment order in GST ASMT-13 was appealable, not the recovery proceedings in FORM GST DRC-07. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 62 to determine the appealable nature of the orders issued by the Assessing Officer.

5. The judgment delved into the condonation of delay in filing appeals, emphasizing that the appeals in question were filed after an uncondonable delay of more than four months. The court found no fault in the Appellate Authority's decision to reject the appeals due to the significant delay. The dismissal of the petition was based on the lack of merit in challenging the assessment orders under Section 62 of the CGST Act.

6. The legal provisions related to the assessment of non-filers of returns were thoroughly examined in the judgment. Section 62 of the CGST Act outlined the assessment process for registered taxable persons who failed to furnish returns, empowering the proper officer to assess the tax liability to the best of judgment. The provision also detailed the consequences of not filing valid returns within the specified timeline, leading to the issuance of demand notices like FORM GST DRC-07.