9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (11) TMI 781 - HC - GSTDismissal of Petitioner s appeal - Petitioner has not submitted any valid proof regarding payment of the mandatory pre-deposit equal to 10% of the disputed amount as required under Section 107 (6) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Petitioner has not submitted any valid documents, such as Board Resolution, to establish that he is the authorised signatory to sign the appeals under the Companies Act, 1956 - HELD THAT - To be registered on the GSTN portal as an authorized signatory, the person must submit the relevant board resolution or power of attorney authorizing him. If Respondent No. 2 had taken a few seconds to check the GSTN portal, he would have found that Mr. Deepak Kokate is duly authorised to sign the appeal documents. In a similar matter in TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, 2024 (9) TMI 396 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , this Court had, by an order dated 13th August 2024, set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority and remanded it for de novo consideration. The impugned order is quashed - matter remanded to Respondent No. 2 for de novo consideration.
Issues:
1. Compliance with pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act, 2017. 2. Submission of valid documents, such as a Board resolution, to establish authorized signatory for appeals under the Companies Act, 1956. Analysis: 1. The primary issue in this case pertains to the compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Petitioner had paid a pre-deposit amount of Rs. 4,42,55,474/-, equivalent to 10% of the disputed tax amount, when filing the appeal. The court found that the Petitioner had indeed made the necessary pre-deposit as evidenced by the screenshots of the Electronic Credit Ledger and Electronic Cash Ledger, along with the system-generated provisional acknowledgement of the appeal. The court emphasized that if the Respondent was dissatisfied with the amount claimed to have been paid, they should have provided the Petitioner with an opportunity to clarify and prove the payments made. 2. The second issue revolves around the submission of valid documents, specifically a Board resolution appointing the authorized signatory for signing appeals under the Companies Act, 1956. The court noted that the Petitioner, in this case, had not been asked to submit such documents by the Respondent. However, the court observed that a screenshot from the GSTN Portal demonstrated that the individual signing the appeal documents was duly authorized. The court highlighted that a simple check by the Respondent on the GSTN portal would have revealed the authorization status of the signatory, emphasizing the need for due diligence on the part of the authorities. 3. The judgment referenced similar cases where orders were set aside and remanded for de novo consideration due to issues related to pre-deposit compliance and submission of valid documents. The court cited instances where the Appellate Authority's failure to verify the authority of the signatory or communicate requirements to the Appellant led to the orders being quashed and remanded. The court directed that the appeal must be disposed of by a specified date, ensuring that all rights and contentions of the parties are preserved while refraining from making observations on the merits of the matter. 4. Ultimately, the court quashed the impugned order and remanded it for de novo consideration, emphasizing the importance of providing the Petitioner with a personal hearing, issuing a reasoned order, and ensuring timely disposal of the appeal. The court maintained that all rights and contentions of the parties remain open, clarifying that no observations on the merits of the case were made. The Rule was disposed of without any orders for costs, concluding the judgment.
|
