Ms Imaging Solution P LTD vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court held that an appeal cannot be dismissed as not maintainable solely on account of the non-payment of the requisite fee. The Court appreciated the stand taken by the State and directed the Appellate Authority to hear the appeal preferred by the petitioner on merits, subject to the petitioner depositing the remaining amount of Rs. 10,000/- within a period of one week from the date of the order. The Court reasoned that before dismissing an appeal, the Appellate Authority should inform the appellant of any deficiency and give them a chance to deposit and remove the deficiency. The Court found that the dismissal for non-payment of fee was not the correct approach. The Court also noted that the petitioner had deposited Rs. 20,000/- initially, and the dispute was over the remaining Rs. 10,000/-.

Facts

M/s. Imaging Solutions (P) Ltd., the petitioner, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Haryana. The Appellate Authority dismissed the petitioner's appeal, holding it to be not maintainable. This dismissal was based on the petitioner's alleged failure to deposit the requisite fee of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. 5,000/- for CGST + Rs. 5,000/- for HGST) as required under Section 101(1) of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner had deposited Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. 10,000/- for CGST + Rs. 10,000/- for HGST), but the Appellate Authority found the appeal incomplete for want of deposition of the correct fee.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner was rightly dismissed as incompetent and not maintainable for alleged non-deposition of the requisite fee under Section 101(1) of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the appeal was wrongly dismissed as not maintainable. They submitted that while they were ready to deposit the requisite fee, the Authority did not allow them to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 10,000/- and wrongly dismissed the appeal. The petitioner contended that if they had deposited the remaining amount, the appeal would have been heard on merits. Revenue's contention: The State counsel submitted that the appeal was rightly dismissed as incompetent and incomplete for want of deposition of the requisite fee. However, the State counsel fairly stated that if the petitioner would have deposited the remaining amount, the appeal should have been heard on merits and would not have been held to be not maintainable.