M/S Transport Corporation Of INDIA LTD. vs. The Additional Commissioner Of GST
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Transport Corporation of India Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an order passed by the Additional Commissioner of GST (Appeal - 1), the First Appellate Authority. The petitioner contended that the original authority, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, did not consider their detailed submissions, additional submissions, and documents when passing an order dated 28.11.2022. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, submitting comprehensive written arguments. However, the petitioner's grievance was that the First Appellate Authority also failed to consider and appreciate these submissions and grounds, summarily dismissing the appeal through a non-speaking order dated 06.03.2024, along with a Summary of Demand in Form GST APL-04. The petitioner sought to quash these orders.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner's contention that the First Appellate Authority failed to consider their submissions was valid. A perusal of the appeal documents and written submissions filed by the petitioner indicated that various grounds, contentions, and documents had been urged which were not considered and appreciated by the First Appellate Authority. The Court found that the appeal was summarily dismissed by the First Appellate Authority through a non-speaking order, without assigning proper or cogent reasons for rejecting the petitioner's grounds/contentions. Consequently, to enable the First Appellate Authority to reconsider the appeal and hear all contentions afresh in accordance with law, the Court set aside the impugned order. The matter was remitted back to the First Appellate Authority for reconsideration, with liberty reserved for the petitioner to submit further pleadings and documents, and for the authority to provide a sufficient opportunity to the petitioner.
Key Issues
1. Whether the First Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 1) failed to consider the detailed submissions, contentions, and documents filed by the petitioner (M/s Transport Corporation of India Ltd.) while deciding the appeal, thereby passing a non-speaking order? The petitioner argued that the First Appellate Authority, like the original authority, did not appreciate or consider the various grounds, contentions, submissions, and documents presented by them. They asserted that the appeal was summarily dismissed without proper reasoning, making the impugned order unsustainable. The petitioner relied on the fact that their detailed written submissions were annexed to the petition. The respondents, represented by their counsel, argued that the petition lacked merit and was liable to be dismissed, without elaborating further on specific arguments or legal precedents.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned as being discussed or forming the basis of the decision, other than the general reference to the GST framework and the appellate process.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “(i) A writ of certiorari may be issued quashing Order in Appeal No.115/2024/ADC-AI/GST dated 06.03.2024 vide Annexure-A and the related Summary of Demand in Form GST APL - 04 dated 06.03.2024 passed by the respondent No.1. (ii) Pass any other order or orders as may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice and equity.”
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. NC: 2024:KHC:38194
In addition to reiterating various contentions urged in the petition and referring the material on record, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the impugned order in original dated 28.11.2022 in order to point out that the detailed submissions, additional submissions, documents, etc. submitted by the petitioner during the course of hearing were not considered by respondent No.2 while passing the impugned order.
Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed appeal before respondent No.1 - First Appellate Authority putting forth various contentions, submissions along with full detailed written submissions as per Annexures- A to F. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the aforesaid facts and circumstances and various grounds, contentions, submissions made/urged by the petitioner, the First Appellate Authority has neither considered nor appreciated the same and proceeded to pass the impugned order at Annexure - A dated 06.03.2024, summarily dismissing the appeal and as such the petitioner is before this Court by way of present petition. NC: 2024:KHC:38194
Per contra learned counsel for respondents in support of the impugned order submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
As rightly contended by the petitioner, perusal of the appeal at Annexure - A and written submissions at Annexure - L filed by the petitioner is sufficient to come to the conclusion that various grounds, contentions, submission, documents, etc, have been urged by the petitioner which has not been considered and appreciated by respondent No.1 while passing the impugned order. On the other hand, the appeal filed by the petitioner has been summarily dismissed by respondent No.1 by non-speaking order without assigning proper or cogent reasons as to why various grounds/contentions urged by the petitioner cannot be accepted. Under such circumstances, in order to enable respondent No.1 to reconsider the appeal filed by the petitioner and to hear all contentions afresh in accordance with law, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order at Annexure - A and remit the matter back to respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. NC: 2024:KHC:38194
In the result, pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The Impugned order at Annexure - A is hereby set aside.
(iii) Matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 First Appellate Authority for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit replies, responses, pleadings, documents, etc., to the respondent, who shall consider the same, provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE
RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.