2024 (5) TMI 915 - HC - GST

Detention of goods - time limitation - appeal rejection due to technical glitch - power of appellate authority to condone delay - HELD THAT - Although, it appears that the appellate authority by placing reliance on section 107 (4) of the said Act observed that the appellate authority is competent to condone the delay in preferring the appeal, provided the same is filed within one of the time prescribed, the said issue had already been decided by the Hon ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.K. Chakraborty and sons v. Union of India Ors., 2023 (12) TMI 290 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT . In the aforesaid judgment this Hon ble Division Bench while interpreting the provisions of the said Act having regard to Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 has held that since there is no expressed or implied exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, by virtue of Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 stands attracted. The present case is, however, still more peculiar. In this case although, the petitioner s appeal was filed within time, by reasons of technical glitches the same was rejected. When the petitioner preferred the second appeal, as there is no option to seek review of the first appeal, the second appeal was rejected on the ground that there is no provision under Section 107 of the said Act to entertain the second appeal - considering the peculiar facts of the case, the petitioner s statutory right to challenge the order passed under Section 129 (3) of the said Act cannot be defeated by reason of technical glitches. The appeal filed by the petitioner is restored by setting aside the orders of rejection dated 30th June, 2023 and 19th September, 2023. The appellate authority is directed to hear out both the appeals by treating the same to be a composite appeal on merit, without insisting for any pre deposit from the petitioner - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to orders under Sections 107 of the GST Act, 2017; Rejection of appeal due to technical glitch; Disputed amount not mentioned in appeal; Delay in filing appeal; Entertaining second appeal under Section 107 of the said Act.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged orders under Sections 107 of the GST Act, 2017, related to the interception of goods and subsequent penalties. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed due to a technical glitch where the disputed amount was not mentioned in the appeal form.

2. The rejection of the appeal was deemed irregular by the petitioner, who argued that the technical error should not have led to the dismissal of the appeal. Despite filing a subsequent appeal with the disputed amount included, it was rejected due to being filed beyond the prescribed limitation period.

3. The State contended that the rejection of the appeal was due to the petitioner's technical error in filling out the appeal form. The State acknowledged that the pre-deposit of penalty was covered by the proviso to Section 107(6) of the said Act, and since the petitioner had paid the required amount, no further pre-deposit was necessary.

4. The court considered the arguments and referred to a previous judgment regarding the interpretation of the Limitation Act, 1963, in relation to the GST Act. The court noted that the petitioner's appeal, though filed within time, was rejected due to technical glitches, and there was no provision for review of the first appeal.

5. Despite the rejection of the second appeal, the court held that the petitioner's statutory right to challenge the order under Section 129(3) of the said Act should not be defeated by technical glitches. The court set aside the rejection orders and directed the appellate authority to hear both appeals as a composite appeal on merit without requiring any pre-deposit from the petitioner.

6. The court instructed the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal within six weeks and concluded the judgment without any order as to costs. All parties were directed to act based on the server copy of the order downloaded from the Court's website.