2024 (2) TMI 477 - HC - GST

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - appeals were rejected on the main ground that the pre-deposit was made through wrong format - HELD THAT - In the impugned Orders, nothing is mentioned about the filing of the delay condoning petitions and the non satisfaction over the reasons submitted for such delay. Be that as it may, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the appeals were rejected on the main ground that the pre-deposit was made through wrong format i.e., Form GST DRC-03 instead of Form APL-01. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that due to technical glitch, they had to make the pre-deposit through Form GST DRC-03 instead of APL-01 and it is not a willful act. Whether the petitioners were forced to make payment of pre-deposit through Form GST DRC-03 instead of APL-01 is a question of fact, which has to be considered in the light of other surrounding facts - the respondent No. 2 is the proper authority to consider the above factual aspects and to decide the fate of delay condoning petitions in right perspective. Therefore, the impugned Rejection Orders are set aside and the matters are remanded back to the respondent No. 2 with a direction to consider the reasons in the delay condoning petitions submitted by the petitioners and after affording an opportunity of hearing to them pass any appropriate orders in accordance with governing law and rules expeditiously. Petition disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
The petitioners faced rejection of appeals due to making pre-deposit through the wrong format, Form GST DRC-03, instead of the prescribed Form APL-01. The delay condoning petitions submitted by the petitioners were not considered by the Respondent No. 2 before rejecting the appeals.

Pre-deposit Format Issue:
The petitioners intended to prefer appeals against Assessment Orders but faced rejection due to making pre-deposit through Form GST DRC-03 instead of Form APL-01. The petitioners argued that a technical glitch on 19.11.2022 prevented them from using the correct format, and thus, their act was not willful. The Court found that the appeals were rejected solely on the ground of the wrong format used for pre-deposit. The matter was remanded back to the respondent No. 2 to consider the reasons for the delay in filing the appeals and to decide on the appropriate orders.

Delay Condoning Petitions Issue:
The petitioners filed separate applications to condone the delay in filing the appeals. However, the Respondent No. 2 did not mention the delay condoning petitions in the impugned Orders and rejected the appeals based solely on the pre-deposit format issue. The Court noted that the delay condoning petitions were indeed submitted by the petitioners, but not considered by the Respondent No. 2. The impugned Rejection Orders were set aside, and the matters were remanded back to the respondent No. 2 to properly consider the reasons for the delay and pass orders in accordance with the law.

Urgency and Directions:
Due to the urgency in the matter, the petitioners were directed to appear before the Respondent No. 2 on a specified date. The respondent No. 2 was instructed to take up the matters expeditiously. All the Writ Petitions were disposed of without any costs, and any pending miscellaneous petitions were to be closed accordingly.