9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 1641 - HC - GSTAction on the part of the respondent authorities in not reflecting the payments so made by the petitioners pursuant to the final demands raised - Time limitation - HELD THAT - Section 129 (5) of the State Act only stipulates that upon payment of the entire amount as referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 129, all proceedings in respect to the notice specified in Sub-section (3) shall be deemed to be concluded. The said provision therefore shows that upon payment of the amount, the proceedings in respect of the notice specified in Sub-section (3) shall be deemed to be concluded. The said provision would in the opinion of this Court, would apply only in circumstances, when pursuant to a Show Cause Notice issued under Section 129 (3), the entire amount so stated therein is paid. In contrast, it would be relevant to observe that Section 129 (3) also refer to an order to be passed within 7 days from the date of service of such notice. However, Section 129 (5) only refers to the notice and not to the order. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that right to file appeal by the petitioners cannot be taken away merely because the petitioners have paid the entire amount demanded in the orders passed under Section 129(3) of the State Act. This Court is of the opinion that on account of the fault of the respondent authorities, the petitioners were not able to file appeals against the respective orders dated 19.10.2023 and 12.09.2023 passed under Section 129 (3) of the State Act - Petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Non-reflection of payments made by petitioners in the website affecting their ability to file statutory appeals. 2. Glitch in the portal preventing petitioners from filing appeals despite making full payments. 3. Interpretation of Section 129(5) of the State Act regarding conclusion of proceedings after payment. 4. Right of petitioners to file appeals even after paying the entire demanded amount under Section 129(3) of the State Act. Analysis: Issue 1: The petitioners approached the court due to the respondent authorities' failure to reflect the payments made in the website, hindering their ability to file statutory appeals. The petitioners had paid the demanded amounts under protest but faced difficulties in initiating appeals due to this non-reflection. Issue 2: The glitch in the portal prevented the petitioners from filing appeals despite making full payments as demanded under Section 129(3) of the State Act. The petitioners submitted communications to the respondent authorities highlighting this issue, but no action was taken to rectify the problem, leading to the filing of the writ petitions. Issue 3: The respondent authorities argued that as per Section 129(5) of the State Act, upon payment of the amounts specified in Section 129(1), all proceedings under Section 129(3) are deemed concluded. This interpretation was used to justify not allowing the petitioners to file appeals. Issue 4: The court analyzed Sections 107 and 129 of the CGST Act, 2017, and the State Act to determine the petitioners' right to file appeals after paying the demanded amounts. The court found that there was no legal bar to filing appeals if the entire demand had been paid. It emphasized that Section 129(5) only pertains to the conclusion of proceedings specified in the notice, not the right to file appeals. In conclusion, the court held that the petitioners were wrongly deprived of their right to file appeals due to the respondent authorities' fault. The court directed the petitioners to file appeals within a specified timeline and instructed the respondent authorities to facilitate the acceptance of these appeals, even in manual mode if necessary, without insisting on the limitation period.
|
