Riinamoni Gogoi vs. The Union Of INDIA And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Riinamoni Gogoi, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated August 28, 2023, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Goods and Services Tax. The petitioner had filed an appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, and claimed to have complied with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, by depositing Rs. 43,914/- on July 4, 2023. However, the appeal was dismissed solely on the ground of non-compliance with Section 35F. Upon inquiry, the GST authorities, represented by Ms. S. P. Upadhaya, conceded that the pre-deposit was indeed received but the dismissal was due to a mistake.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated August 28, 2023, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was unsustainable. The Court noted that the petitioner had complied with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, by depositing Rs. 43,914/-. The GST authorities themselves conceded that the pre-deposit was received and the dismissal was due to a mistake. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order. The Court directed the petitioner to appear before the appellate authority on June 16, 2025, for a fresh hearing of the appeal. The authorities were granted liberty to proceed ex-parte if the petitioner failed to appear on the specified date.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, was liable to be dismissed for alleged non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, when the pre-deposit amount was demonstrably made? Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that the appeal was wrongly dismissed as the mandatory pre-deposit of Rs. 43,914/- under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, had been made vide challan dated July 4, 2023. The dismissal by the Commissioner (Appeals) was therefore erroneous. Revenue/State: Submitted, on instruction, that the pre-deposit was in fact received by the authority, and the dismissal was a result of a mistake.