2023 (1) TMI 1097 - HC - GST

Maintainability of appeal - non-compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit - Attachment of Bank accounts of appellant - Initiation of garnishee proceedings - HELD THAT - When the appeal was presented, the mandatory pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed tax has been complied with by the appellant. If that be so, no coercive action should be taken against the appellant till the appeal is heard and disposed of. In terms of the above direction, the appellant is granted liberty to file an appropriate interim application in the appeal petition and the appellate authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders for the purpose of lifting the garnishee order and the bank attachment. The appellant shall file the application in the statutory appeal not later than 10th February, 2023. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order dismissing appeal on grounds of limitation under GST Act, 2017.
2. Consideration of illness as a valid reason for delay in filing appeal.
3. Exercise of discretion by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
4. Setting aside the order of the appellate authority and granting relief to the appellant.
5. Direction to the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits.
6. Garnishee proceedings initiated by authorities.
7. Compliance with mandatory pre-deposit and prevention of coercive action.
8. Liberty granted to file an interim application for lifting garnishee order.
9. No order as to costs.

Analysis:

1. The appeal before the High Court challenged the order of the Senior Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dismissing the appeal on the grounds of limitation under the GST Act, 2017. The appellant filed the appeal beyond the statutory period, citing illness as the reason for delay.

2. The Court noted that the appellant's inability to file the appeal within the limitation period due to illness was supported by a doctor's certificate. The revenue did not dispute this claim, but the appellate authority held the appeal as time-barred.

3. Despite the statutory time limit, the Court invoked its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution to examine the circumstances. It emphasized the importance of the appellate remedy and the authority's ability to re-evaluate the facts, leading to the decision to condone the delay.

4. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the appellate authority. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, directing the authority to consider the appeal on its merits after providing an opportunity for a personal hearing.

5. The Court clarified that its decision in this case should not be considered a precedent and was based on the specific facts presented.

6. Additionally, the appellant's counsel mentioned garnishee proceedings initiated by attaching the appellant's bank account, raising concerns about coercive actions.

7. The appellant had complied with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement, leading the Court to grant relief by preventing coercive actions until the appeal is heard. The appellant was given liberty to file an interim application to lift the garnishee order.

8. No costs were awarded in this matter, and the Court directed the parties to receive certified copies of the order promptly upon formalities' completion.