2020 (8) TMI 202 - HC - GST

Maintainability of appeal - Release of detained goods - HELD THAT - There are no reason as to why the appropriate appellate authority would not accept a hard copy of the appeal and decide the same in accordance with law. We only hope and expect the appropriate authority to consider and decide the appeal expeditiously on its merit and with reasonable dispatch. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Petition to quash order and notice of demand under Bihar Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, release of seized goods, appeal mechanism, acceptance of appeals in electronic mode, exclusion of time spent on petition for limitation purposes, timeline for appeal, expeditious disposal of appeal.

Analysis:

1. Quashing of Order and Notice of Demand:
The petitioner sought to quash the order dated 16.07.2019 and the notice of demand issued by the respondent under section 129(3) of the Bihar Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The court acknowledged the petitioner's prayer and disposed of the petition with the expectation that the appropriate appellate authority would accept a hard copy of the appeal and decide it in accordance with the law.

2. Release of Seized Goods:
Another relief sought by the petitioner was the release of goods seized and detained under an order dated 14.06.2019. The court did not delve into this issue specifically in the judgment but disposed of the petition with a general expectation of expeditious consideration and decision by the appropriate authority.

3. Appeal Mechanism and Electronic Mode:
The petitioner raised concerns about the acceptance of appeals in electronic mode under the statute. The court noted that the statute provides the petitioner with the right to file an appeal under the Bihar Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The court emphasized that the appropriate appellate authority should accept a hard copy of the appeal and decide it in accordance with the law. The respondent assured that any appeal preferred within the statutory period would be taken on record, heard, and decided as per the law.

4. Limitation and Timeline for Appeal:
The judgment addressed the issue of limitation by excluding the period spent by the petitioner in pursuing the present petition for limitation purposes. It was further mentioned that the issue of limitation would not hinder the petitioner if the appeal is preferred on or before 16.1.2020, as mutually agreed upon by the parties.

5. Expeditious Disposal of Appeal:
The court expressed hope and expectation for the appropriate authority to consider and decide the appeal expeditiously on its merit and with reasonable dispatch. Both learned counsels undertook not to seek unnecessary adjournments, indicating a commitment to expedite the process.

In conclusion, the judgment disposed of the petition with the expectation of the appeal being accepted in hard copy, exclusion of time spent on the petition for limitation purposes, a mutual agreement on the timeline for appeal, and a call for expeditious disposal of the appeal by the appropriate authority.