2022 (6) TMI 94 - HC - GST

Levy of penalty - Seizure of goods alongwith vehicle - case of petitioner is that the requirement of e-way bill to accompany the goods was not in place in the State of U.P., at the relevant time - HELD THAT - It is a settled principle in law that no party may be prejudiced by an act of Court. While, the Supreme Court set aside all the orders passed by this Court in different cases as were disclosed by the State in its compliance affidavit, it can never be accepted that it was the intention of the Supreme Court to render the assessees remediless or to take away their right of appeal. In fact the order of the Supreme Court clearly indicates to the contrary. Thus, it was provided by the Supreme Court that in compliance of its order, the revenue authority shall necessarily make compliance within a period of four weeks. It remained for the State authorities to have correctly apprised the Supreme Court, at that stage, itself that the remedy of appeal had been lost by most of the assessees. This Court cannot turn a blind eye to the harsh facts and their consequence, as have been noted above. Accordingly, a query was put to the learned Chief Standing Counsel, today, if the State would waive its objection as to limitation, in these circumstances. Sri K.R. Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel has fairly stated, since the circumstances are unique and not such as may be blamed on the assessees, the State would not raise any objection to limitation if the appeal/s is/are filed by aggrieved assessees, within reasonable time. The matter is remitted to the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh, on merits without raising any objection as to limitation - Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Quashing of orders under U.P. GST Act, 2017; Compliance with Supreme Court order; Time limitation for filing appeals.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought to quash orders under the U.P. GST Act, 2017, including an order dated 22.11.2021 by the Appeal Authority, an order dated 09.02.2018 by respondent no.4 under Section 129(3) of the Act, and a notice dated 07.12.2019 proposing proceedings under Section 130 of the Act. The petitioner argued that their case was covered by a previous Division Bench pronouncement. However, the Supreme Court, in a related matter, directed the revenue authorities to process claims afresh and set aside all orders passed by the High Court, including pending writ petitions. The petitioner's appeal against the original order was dismissed as time-barred, leading to a unique situation arising from conflicting orders by the High Court and the Supreme Court.

The Court noted that the Supreme Court's intention was not to render assessees remediless, despite setting aside High Court orders. The State agreed not to raise objections to limitation for filing appeals due to the unique circumstances. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the appellate order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh without limitation objections. The jurisdictional revenue authorities were directed to issue fresh notices to affected assessees, allowing them to file appeals within ninety days. The communication of this order to all first appellate authorities was mandated to ensure appeals were entertained without limitation objections.

In conclusion, the Court addressed the conflicting orders, ensuring assessees were not prejudiced by the situation. The decision provided a pathway for affected parties to appeal without limitation constraints, emphasizing the importance of justice and fair treatment in legal proceedings.