9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 732 - HC - GSTMaintainability of appeal - petitioner failed to furnish the certified copy as well as to remit the additional court fee - HELD THAT - The respondent has adopted a hyper-technical approach in rejecting the appeal especially during these times of Covid-19 pandemic. Though the petitioner is bound to cure the defects, within the time stipulated in the notice issued by the respondent, in the present circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that one more opportunity ought to be granted to the petitioner to rectify the defects. Interests of justice demand that a liberal approach is adopted, especially since the Covid-19 pandemic has affected every person, in every walk of life. The limitation periods had even been extended by the Supreme Court due to the unprecedented situation prevailing so that the litigants are not prevented from having access to justice, on account of prescribed periods of limitation. The respondent are directed to restore the appeal back to the files on condition that petitioner furnishes the additional court fee, as well as the certified copy of the order, appealed against, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment - petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
Challenge to order under section 129 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - Dismissal of appeal by respondent due to defects - Requirement to remit court fee and furnish certified copy - Hyper-technical approach of respondent in dismissing appeal - Impact of Covid-19 pandemic on judicial proceedings - Granting opportunity to rectify defects. Analysis: The judgment by the Honorable Mr. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas of the Kerala High Court dealt with a case where the petitioner had challenged an order under section 129 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The respondent had dismissed the appeal due to certain defects noticed, including the failure of the petitioner to remit court fee of 1% of the disputed amount as required by section 76 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959. Additionally, the petitioner had not furnished a certified copy of the order appealed against, as mandated by Rule 108(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Consequently, the respondent dismissed the appeal on 28-10-2021. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the dismissal of the appeal on hyper-technicalities had caused prejudice, especially considering the short period given to rectify the defects. The Court acknowledged the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on judicial proceedings and criticized the respondent's hyper-technical approach in rejecting the appeal. The Court emphasized the need for a liberal approach, given the extraordinary circumstances prevailing due to the pandemic, and highlighted the Supreme Court's extension of limitation periods to ensure access to justice. In light of the circumstances and the principles of justice, the Court set aside the respondent's order rejecting the appeal. The Court directed the respondent to restore the appeal to the files on the condition that the petitioner rectifies the defects by remitting the additional court fee and submitting the certified copy of the order appealed against within 15 days from the date of receipt of the judgment. The Court warned that failure to comply with these conditions would empower the respondent to proceed in accordance with the law. Ultimately, the writ petition was allowed, granting the petitioner an opportunity to rectify the defects and continue with the appeal process.
|
