M/S Shiv Steel Industries vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 Ors

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shiv Steel Industries, a partnership firm, is challenging an order dated January 31, 2025, passed by the Commissioner of Taxes (Appeal), Guwahati. This order dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an Order-in-Original dated December 20, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Goods and Services Tax. The original order was issued for the Financial Year 2017-2018 due to the non-filing of annual returns. The petitioner had been assessed to tax under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The appeal was dismissed for failure to submit the mandatory pre-deposit amount as required by Section 79(5) of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Held

The Court held that while the appellate authority correctly did not entertain the appeal due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 79(5) of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003, as per the ruling in Tecnimont Pvt. Ltd., the principle of equity, as emphasized in earlier Supreme Court decisions (State of AP Vs P Laxmi Devi, Har Devi Asnani Vs State of Rajasthan) and a Division Bench decision in JSB Cement LLP, is applicable. The Court found that in genuine cases of hardship, recourse to a superior court is open. Applying this principle, and noting the petitioner's readiness to make the pre-deposit, the Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226, inclined to grant the petitioner a fresh hearing. The Court set aside the appellate order dated January 31, 2025, subject to the statutory deposit being made. The Court explicitly stated it had not entered into the merits of the determination. The petitioner was directed to appear before the appellate authority within 30 days with a copy of the order and make the statutory deposit, after which the appeal would be heard afresh. If the petitioner failed to comply, the set-aside order would revive.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority, under Section 79(5) of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003, has the power to waive the statutory pre-deposit requirement for entertaining an appeal, and if not, can a writ Court intervene based on equitable principles? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the appellate authority should be directed to hear the appeal on merits, relying on equitable principles as applied in JSB Cement LLP Vs. State of Assam and Ors and Tecnimont Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Punjab. The petitioner sought permission to make the pre-deposit within a stipulated period. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue contended that the appellate authorities had not committed any illegality. Citing Tecnimont Private Ltd, the revenue argued that the Hon'ble Apex Court clearly held that appellate authorities lack the power to waive statutory pre-deposit requirements, and therefore, the Court should not exercise its certiorari jurisdiction.