9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (10) TMI 950 - HC - GSTRejection of appeal in Form GST APL-02 - Lack of reasons for determining liability - Violation of rpinciples of natural justice - HELD THAT - The petitioners did not respond either to the notice in DRC-01A or to the notice in DRC-01. Having regard thereto the proper officer had determined the liability. Though ordinarily, such an order having regard to the conduct of the petitioners, cannot be said to be bad, however, upon a closer scrutiny of such order it would transpire that the proper officer had failed to give any reasons apart from recording that the petitioners had failed to respond to the notice issued in DRC- 01A or to the notice in DRC-01. The appellate authority had also rejected the appeal on the ground of delay. There has been no appropriate consideration of the matter on merits at any stage. Having regard to the peculiar facts of the case and taking note of the fact that the petitioners have already deposited 12.5 percent of the amount to the tax in dispute, the matter remanded to the appellate authority for adjudicating on merits. The appellate authority shall hear out and dispose of the appeal on merits as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. The order of rejection of the appeal in Form GST APL-02 dated 3rd April, 2024 stands set aside - the writ petition is disposed of.
Issues:
Challenging rejection of appeal in Form GST APL-02. Lack of reasons for determining liability. Delay in filing appeal. Lack of response to show-cause notices. Rejection of appeal on grounds of delay without considering merits. Deposit of 12.5% of disputed tax amount. Remand to appellate authority for adjudication on merits. Analysis: The writ petition was filed challenging the rejection of an appeal in Form GST APL-02 dated 3rd April, 2024. The petitioners argued that the proper officer did not provide reasons for determining their liability under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act 2017. They contended that the delay in filing the appeal was due to their lack of awareness about the ex-parte order passed by the proper officer. The petitioners had filed an appeal belatedly with the required pre-deposit, which was rejected by the appellate authority without assigning reasons other than noting the delay in submission of the appeal. The Additional Government Pleader argued that the petitioners did not respond to the show-cause notices, and thus, the order passed by the proper officer was justified. The appeal was considered out of time, and the appellate authority's rejection based on the delay was deemed appropriate. However, upon closer scrutiny, it was observed that the proper officer failed to provide any reasons for the determination of liability other than the lack of response to the notices. After hearing both parties, the court found that while the conduct of the petitioners may not have been ideal, there was a lack of appropriate consideration of the matter on merits at any stage. Considering the peculiar facts of the case and noting that the petitioners had already deposited 12.5% of the disputed tax amount, the court remanded the matter to the appellate authority for adjudication on merits. The appellate authority was directed to hear and dispose of the appeal expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks from the date of the court's order. During the pendency of the appeal, the demand raised by the proper officer for the tax period in question was ordered to remain stayed. The court set aside the order rejecting the appeal in Form GST APL-02 dated 3rd April, 2024, and disposed of the writ petition with no order as to costs. The parties were directed to be provided with an urgent certified copy of the order if requested.
|
