2019 (9) TMI 1081 - HC - GST

Imposition of penalty - mis-declaration of goods - evasion of tax - exparte order - non appearance before the appellate authority - HELD THAT - While rejecting the appeal, the 3rd respondent does not have jurisdiction to record findings on merits by referring to the memorandum of grounds. She prays for setting aside Ext.P5 order and requests resubmission of Ext.P2 appeal after curing the defects noted or by giving suitable reply as is permissible in law - The petitioner is also given liberty to make good the deficiency of Kerala Legal Benefit Fund while re-submitting Ext.P2 appeal. The order is set aside - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of appellate authority, legality of order, defects in appeal submission, Kerala Legal Benefit Fund deficiency

The judgment by the Kerala High Court involved a writ petition challenging the order of the 3rd respondent dismissing an appeal due to various defects. The petitioner contended that the order was illegal and the appellate authority exceeded its jurisdiction by rejecting the appeal without allowing the appellant to address the noted defects. The petitioner argued that the distinction between considering an appeal on merits and rejecting it for defects was not properly understood by the 3rd respondent. The court agreed with the petitioner's arguments, setting aside the order and granting liberty to the petitioner to resubmit the appeal after addressing the defects within three weeks. The court directed the appellate authority to consider the representation, take the appeal on file, schedule a hearing, and dispose of the appeal on merits promptly if the resubmission is in order. The petitioner was also given the opportunity to rectify the deficiency related to the Kerala Legal Benefit Fund during the resubmission process.

In this case, the primary issue revolved around the jurisdiction exercised by the 3rd respondent in dismissing the appeal due to identified defects. The petitioner argued that the 3rd respondent did not follow the correct procedure and exceeded the authority by delving into the merits of the case while rejecting the appeal based on procedural shortcomings. The court agreed with the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of allowing the appellant to rectify any defects before outright dismissal. By setting aside the order and providing the petitioner with the opportunity to address the noted deficiencies, the court upheld the principles of natural justice and fair procedure in appellate matters.

Another crucial aspect of the judgment was the examination of the legality of the order in question. The court scrutinized the grounds on which the appeal was dismissed, particularly focusing on the misclassification of goods for tax evasion purposes and the failure of the appellant to present valid documents to support their case. The court found that while these issues were relevant, the dismissal of the appeal solely on procedural grounds without giving the appellant a chance to rectify the deficiencies was improper. By allowing the petitioner to resubmit the appeal after addressing the defects, the court ensured that the case would be considered on its merits rather than being rejected outright due to procedural irregularities.

Moreover, the judgment addressed the specific defect related to the Kerala Legal Benefit Fund, highlighting the necessity for the appellant to cure this deficiency during the resubmission of the appeal. The court granted the petitioner the opportunity to rectify this particular issue within the specified timeframe, emphasizing the importance of complying with all legal requirements for a valid appeal submission. By granting liberty to the petitioner to address the Kerala Legal Benefit Fund deficiency during the resubmission process, the court ensured that the appeal would be considered in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations.

Overall, the Kerala High Court's judgment in this case underscored the significance of procedural fairness, jurisdictional boundaries, and compliance with legal requirements in appellate proceedings. By setting aside the order of the 3rd respondent and allowing the petitioner to rectify the identified defects, the court upheld the principles of natural justice and provided the appellant with a fair opportunity to present their case on its merits.