2024 (7) TMI 166 - HC - GST

Seeking to quash Form GST APL-02 - Appeal challenging the determination of tax rejected due to non-supply of certified copy of the order - order of rejection has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - There is no dispute that the petitioner preferred the appeal on 18.02.2021. If the authority found some defect, the obligation casts on the appellate authority to intimate the appellant with regard to the defect in the appeal itself. But as it appears nothing has been placed on record nor any argument has been advanced by the Revenue Department with regard to intimation of any defect, but rejected the same after long lapse of around 11 months only on 20.05.2022. Even if that will also be taken into consideration, the action of the opposite parties is absolutely arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of law and in violation of the principle of natural justice, reason being, if the party files an appeal in ignorance of the position that he has to file the certified copies of the order and the filing of appeal is defective one, then the appellate authority has to intimate the applicant with regard to the defect in the appeal by giving him opportunity to rectify the defect, so that the appellant can remove the same within the time stipulated. The order passed by the appellate authority under Annexure-1 in rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner for non-supply of the certified copies, cannot sustain and the same is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to entertain the same and pass order after allowing the petitioner to remove the defect as would be pointed out by the appellate authority - Petition disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the rejection of Form GST APL-02 by the petitioner.
2. Allegation of rejection without intimation of defects in the appeal.
3. Compliance with principles of natural justice in rejection of appeal.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash Form GST APL-02 issued by the opposite party, challenging the rejection of an appeal against the order of determination of Tax. The rejection was based on the non-supply of a certified copy of the order. The petitioner argued that the rejection was unjustified, especially considering the delay in filing the appeal due to COVID-19 restrictions. The petitioner contended that if informed of the defect, necessary steps would have been taken. The rejection was criticized as mechanical and lacking an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard.

2. The Revenue's counsel argued that the rejection was valid due to the non-filing of the certified copy, citing an amendment in the Odisha Goods and Service Tax Rules. However, it was noted that no specific defect was communicated to the petitioner, and the rejection occurred after a significant delay. The court emphasized that the obligation lies with the appellate authority to inform the appellant of any defects in the appeal. The rejection without providing an opportunity to rectify the defect was deemed arbitrary, unreasonable, and a violation of natural justice principles.

3. After hearing both parties and examining the record, the court found that the rejection of the appeal for non-supply of certified copies was unjustified. The court set aside the rejection order and remitted the matter back to the appellate authority. The court directed the authority to allow the petitioner to rectify any identified defects before making a decision. The court highlighted the importance of complying with natural justice principles and emphasized the need for proper communication of defects to appellants for rectification within a stipulated time frame. The judgment also referenced a previous case to support the principles applied in the current case.

In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of adherence to natural justice principles and providing appellants with an opportunity to rectify defects in their appeals before rejection.