2024 (9) TMI 1399 - HC - GST

Dismissal of Appeal - appeal was considered to have been filed beyond 3 months from the date of communication of the order impugned in the said appeal - petitioner has not provided any acceptable evidence to prove that date of communication of order-in-original - HELD THAT - The order-in-appeal dated 5th July 2024 is set aside - matter remanded for de novo consideration. Appellate Authority who will hear this appeal shall give personal hearing to Appellant, notice whereof shall be communicated at least 5 working days in advance. The order to be passed shall be a reasoned order dealing with all submissions of Appellant. If the Appellate Authority is going to rely on any order or judgment of any Court or Tribunal or any other forum, a list thereof shall be made available along with the notice for personal hearing. If the order or a judgment is unreported then a copy thereof shall also be made available along with the notice. This is to enable Appellant to deal with/distinguish the judgment or the order. The appeal shall be disposed by 30th November 2024.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order-in-appeal based on date of communication of original order, Non-service of personal hearing notices, Comparison with a similar case regarding authorized signatory, Request for de novo consideration.

Analysis:

The petition challenged an order-in-appeal dated 5th July 2024, primarily disputing the date of communication of the original order. The petitioner contended that the order-in-appeal was passed based on the belief that the appeal was filed beyond the 3-month limit from the communication date of the original order, which the petitioner argued was incorrect. The petitioner provided evidence of the email communication on 29th December 2023, establishing the timely filing of the appeal within the statutory period under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Furthermore, the petitioner raised concerns about the non-service of personal hearing notices, claiming that no notices were served physically, by post, or via email to the authorized persons as declared on the GST portal. This lack of notice was a significant grievance for the petitioner, indicating a procedural flaw in the appellate process.

In a related case, the court had previously set aside an order due to issues with the authorized signatory. The court emphasized the importance of verifying the authority of the signatory and providing a fair opportunity for the appellant to address any doubts regarding authorization. This comparison highlighted the need for proper verification procedures and adherence to legal requirements in such matters.

Considering the similarities with the aforementioned case, the court set aside the order-in-appeal dated 5th July 2024 and remanded the matter for de novo consideration. The court directed the Appellate Authority to conduct a fresh hearing, provide advance notice, issue a reasoned order addressing all submissions, and furnish any relevant legal references for the appellant's benefit. The deadline for disposing of the appeal was set for 30th November 2024, with all rights and contentions preserved for the parties.

Overall, the judgment focused on procedural irregularities, the importance of timely communication and proper notice in appellate proceedings, and the necessity for a fair and thorough reconsideration of the matter without delving into the substantive merits of the case.