2021 (10) TMI 1162 - HC - GST

Principles of natural justice - seizure of goods alongwith the vehicle - levy of penalty - place of supply mentioned in the E-way bill is different from the actual place of receiver - suppression of sales or not - case of petitioner is that the appellate authority did not provide any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner - time limitation - HELD THAT - In the present case, impugned order dated 02-07-2021 was duly communicated to the petitioner on the same day. Therefore, petitioner had to file the appeal within four months as outer limit (from the date i.e. 02-07-2019) on or before 30- 10-2019 whereas appeal was preferred on 16-12-2019. Although petitioner has taken the ground that petitioner received order dated 02-07-2019 on 30-07-2019 and if period is counted from 30-07-2019 also, even then outer limit of four months expires on 30-11-2019. Appellate authority as recorded this fact and given opinion that appellate authority has no power to condone the delay after expiry of four months as stipulated in Section 107(1) and 107(4) of the SGST Act. Therefore, appeal was dismissed on account of delay. Non affording of opportunity of hearing - HELD THAT - Although Section 107(4) and (8) of the SGST Act provides provision for opportunity of hearing to the appellant and if it is seen in juxtaposition, then it appears that opportunity of hearing is required to be given to an appellant who files appeal. In the present context, notice of hearing dated 17-02-2020 (Annexure P/5) and different e-mails dated 18-05-2020, 26-10-2020 and 24-11-2020 indicate that petitioner had filed the written submissions in the pending appeal for perusal of authority and for record purpose before the appellate authority. Petitioner did not press for hearing, rather pressed for consideration of written submissions and tried to press for hearing on 28.11.2020, when final order was passed. Understandably, petitioner wanted early decision so that issue of release of attached vehicle be resolved - from the record, it appears that pre-decisional hearing was afforded to the petitioner and petitioner filed written submissions also in the pending appeal for perusal and for record purpose. Therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner does not get any opportunity of hearing. Appeal got dismissed on the point of limitation as preliminary ground for rejection of appeal and admittedly, petitioner filed appeal belatedly. Therefore, for personal hearing appellate authority could not have waited for normalcy to resume. On the basis of written submissions and record available, appellate authority passed the impugned order dated 28-11-2020 which is otherwise also stands to judicial scrutiny. When right to represent the case was given in peculiar fact situation of COVID-19 pandemic by way of e-mails/written submissions, then sufficient/necessary compliance is being made regarding opportunity of hearing. Even otherwise on merits also appellate authority delved upon and thereafter ensure passing of order - No illegality or perversity has been pointed out by the petitioner to the extent where this Court would have invoked the jurisdiction. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the impugned orders dated 28-11-2020 and 02-07-2019.
2. Legality of the penalty imposed under Section 129 of the CGST Act.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements and principles of natural justice.
4. Timeliness of the appeal filed under Section 107 of the SGST Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Impugned Orders:
The petitioner challenged the orders dated 02-07-2019 and 28-11-2020, seeking their quashing. The petitioner, a manufacturer of rubber-related goods registered with the GST Department in Maharashtra, supplied goods to a company registered in Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. An error occurred when the petitioner generated a tax invoice for the wrong state, leading to the detention of goods and vehicle by the respondents for discrepancies in the E-way bill. The petitioner's appeal against the order was dismissed due to delay.

2. Legality of the Penalty Imposed Under Section 129 of the CGST Act:
The petitioner argued that the penalty under Section 129 was unjustified as all required documents were carried, and the error was procedural without fraudulent intent. The respondents contended that the discrepancy in the E-way bill justified the penalty, as Section 129 does not distinguish between inadvertent and advertent errors. The court upheld the penalty, emphasizing that the intention behind the error is inferred from conduct, and the statutory provisions do not exempt clerical mistakes from penalties.

3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements and Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner claimed that the appellate authority violated principles of natural justice by not providing a personal hearing. The court noted that the petitioner had ample opportunity to present written submissions and that the appellate authority had considered these submissions. The court referenced precedents, highlighting that personal hearings are not mandatory in all cases, and written representations can suffice to meet natural justice requirements. The court concluded that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard.

4. Timeliness of the Appeal Filed Under Section 107 of the SGST Act:
The petitioner filed the appeal beyond the statutory period of three months plus an additional one-month grace period. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal for being time-barred, as it lacked the power to condone delays beyond the four-month limit. The court upheld this decision, reiterating the strict compliance required by fiscal statutes and the limited scope for judicial interference under discretionary jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, affirming the validity of the impugned orders, the legality of the penalty under Section 129 of the CGST Act, and the procedural propriety of the appellate authority's actions. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and procedural requirements in fiscal matters.