M/S.Gaea Engineers And Contractors PVT.LTD.Bbsr vs. Chief Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise, Odisha Bbsr
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 06.11.2025
In the present writ petition, challenge is laid to the order dated 01.11.2024 passed in Appeal No.518/GST/BBSR/ADC/2024-25 rejecting the appeal filed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017/ the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (collectively, “GST Act”) on the ground that there has been non-compliance of statutory requirement of sub-section (6) thereof.
Ms. Itishree Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that challenging the Order-in-Original dated 14.11.2023 passed by the Superintendent, GST and Central Excise, Bhubaneswar-VI Range, Bhubaneswar, an appeal was preferred under Section 107 of the GST Act. The Department having received the memorandum of appeal, registered the case and allotted No.518/GST/ BBSR/ADC/2024-25. Had there been restriction or defect in such filing, the same could have been brought to the notie of the petitioner within reasonable period and/or returned the memorandum of appeal without registering it.
It is contended that since the Proper Officer/Adjudicating Authority had passed the Order-in-Original manually, the petitioner filed the appeal manually. Nevertheless, it is ex facie from the Appellate Order that the First Appellate Authority has issued “notice of personal hearing”, but he proceeded to reject the appeal without considering the merit of the appeal.
Ms. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to urge that this mercy petition has been filed for taking cognizance of the fact that the petitioner has already deposited the requisite amount of Rs.1,58,179/- in compliance of requirement under sub-section (6) of Section 107 of the CGST Act on 04.09.2025 and, therefore, she fervently prayed for setting aside the Order-in-Appeal and restore the appeal for rendering decision on merit.
Sri Mukesh Agarwal, learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing for the Department submitted that since the petitioner has not complied with the statutory mandate required under sub-section (6) of Section 107 of the GST Act, the Appellate Authority has no authority to proceed with the hearing of the appeal, notwithstanding notice for personal hearing was issued.
Heard Ms. Itishree Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Mukesh Agarwal, learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing for the Department.
It is manifest on perusal of Order-in-Appeal that under the Heading “Personal Hearing”, the following is reflected:
“4. 0. The case was posted for personal hearing on 24.09.2024 vide letter dated 12.09.2024. However, the Notice of personal hearing was returned by the postal department with the remarks “No such person”.
Despite the statute itself restrains filing of appeal without satisfying the condition for pre-deposit as envisaged under Section 107(6), the Appellate Authority has received the appeal and assigned it a number, i.e., “Appeal No.518/GST/BBSR/ADC/2024-25”. This indicates that the Appellate Authority omitted and/or waived the condition stipulated in Section 107(6), but he intended to proceed with the hearing of appeal on merit. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing, drew attention to Annexure-4 to demonstrate that the petitioner has deposited the amount required under sub-section (6) of Section 107 of the GST Act, this Court feels it appropriate to set aside the order of rejection of appeal (Annexure- 1).
In order to avail opportunity to have the appeal to be heard on merit, the Appellant is at liberty to appear before the Appellate Authority on or before 28.11.2025. On its appearance the Appellate Authority may fix date of hearing by taking into consideration the amount deposited vide payment receipt dated 04.09.2025 (Annexure- 4), and restoring the appeal to file.
In the event of failure on the part of the petitioner to appear before the Appellate Authority not later than the stipulated date, this order would have no impact on the impugned Appellate Order, which would automatically revive.
It is expected that the Appellate Authority shall make endeavor to hear and dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. It is clarified that this Court has expressed no opinion on the merit of the case.
It is further made clear that on considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this order has been passed.
With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is disposed of. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman) Judge MRS/Laxmikant
Reproduced from the public record of the Orissa High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.