2023 (4) TMI 1219 - HC - GST

Initiation of fresh proceedings - first respondent was seized of the matter and intimation in Form GSTDRC-01 dated 05.03.2021 was issued to which the appellants had submitted their reply dated 08.03.2021 - the said reply was neither considered nor rejected and the matter was kept pending - HELD THAT - The option which was available to the first respondent was to consider the representation/reply and if not satisfied, could have proceeded to issue show cause notice under Section 74(1) of the Act which option the first respondent did not exercise and the matter was left to linger. Thus, the preliminary proceedings could not have been initiated by the second respondent when proceeding initiated by the first respondent for the very same amount on the very same allegation was not taken to the logical end. When the statutory appeal was pending before the appellate authority, the first respondent had dropped the proceedings. It is very crucial to note that from the final report of the first respondent it is seen that the proceedings was closed by the first respondent only on 24.01.2023. Thus, for all purposes, it is deemed that the first proceedings initiated by the first respondent pursuant to intimation dated 05.03.2021 had attained finality only on 23.01.2022 and on the said date, the appeal as against the second proceedings initiated by the second respondent was already pending before the appellate authority. The appeal should not be treated to be as time barred, more particularly, when the appellants had responded to the first intimation dated 05.03.2021 and submitted their reply on 08.03.2021, and it was not considered and disposed of. Therefore, the issue as to whether the appellants did not notice the uploading of the Form GST DRC-01 dated 16.09.2021 from the portal or not has become an academic issue and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal should be decided on merits and in accordance with law. The appeal is restored to the file and number of the appellate authority with a direction to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits and in accordance with law - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The appeal challenges the order rejecting the appeal as time-barred under the Goods & Services Tax Act, based on the initiation of fresh proceedings by the second respondent while the first respondent's proceedings were pending.

Detailed Judgment:

Issue 1: Time-barred appeal
The appellants challenged an order rejecting their appeal as time-barred, contending that they were not aware of a notice uploaded on the portal until after payment was made. The first respondent issued an intimation in March 2021, to which the appellants replied promptly. However, the matter was not further adjudicated, and a fresh summary was issued by the second respondent in September 2021. The appellants argued that the appeal was filed after the limitation period expired due to lack of notice.

Issue 2: Fresh proceedings by second respondent
The crucial question was whether the second respondent could initiate fresh proceedings when the first respondent had not concluded the initial proceedings. The first respondent did not proceed to issue a show cause notice after receiving the appellants' reply, leaving the matter pending. The second respondent's initiation of proceedings while the first respondent's matter was unresolved raised concerns about the validity of the subsequent proceedings.

Judgment Summary:
The Court found that the appeal should not be considered time-barred, given the peculiar circumstances where the first respondent's proceedings were not finalized, and the appellants had responded promptly to the initial intimation. The Court emphasized that the appeal should be decided on its merits and in accordance with the law. Consequently, the order rejecting the appeal was set aside, and the matter was restored to the appellate authority for a proper hearing and disposal.

The Court directed that any excess amount swiped from the appellants' credit ledger should be re-credited, with the appellants given an opportunity for a personal hearing. The judgment considered the specific facts and circumstances of the case to ensure a just outcome. Additionally, a typographical error in the order was corrected to reflect accurate details, ensuring clarity in the record.