M/S. Sukhyat Estates And Constructions Private Limited, Bbsr vs. Chief Commissioner, GST, Central Excise And Customs, Central Revenue Building, Bbsr

Subject matter of appeal, being File No.GAPPL/COM/STP/ 2090/ 2024-APPEAL/11657, was assessment in respect of the Petitioner framed under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 vide order dated 12.08.2024 by the Assistant Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Bhubaneswar-I Division-Opposite Party No.3. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals), Bhubaneswar vide common order dated 31.12.2024 with respect to eight appellants rejected the appeals not only on the ground of non-compliance of statutory requirement of pre-deposit in terms of Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 but also on merits on the ground of paucity of the documentary evidence. In the present writ petition, this Court is concerned with one of the appellants in the aforesaid common order, whose name finds place at serial No.6 of the cover page of the said appellate order.

Mr. Chitta Ranjan Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner drew attention of this Court to Annexure-2 to show that the amount of pre-deposit had been made for the purpose of appeal in terms of Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 much prior to passing of rejection order.

It is submitted that though the Petitioner adhered to the statutory requirement for entertainment of the appeal, the Appellate Authority under misconception proceeded to reject the appeal on the said premise. It is, thus, submitted that when the Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal for non-compliance of the statutory requirement, he should not have decided the appeal citing merits of the matter.

On 06.05.2025 when the matter was taken up before this Court, Mr. Umesh Chandra Sahoo, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the GST, Central Excise and Customs sought for accommodation to verify the document at Annexure-2 whether it is relatable to pre- deposit in connection with appeal in question.

Today when the matter is taken up, the learned Junior Standing Counsel conceded that the Petitioner has, in fact, deposited the amount required under the statute for maintaining the appeal.

In view of such submission, this Court while observing that the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal on the ground of non- compliance of statutory requirement of pre-deposit should not have delved into the merit of the appeal. However, under misconception of non-deposit of condition for entertainment of appeal, the appeal has been dismissed, this Court sets aside the order dated 31.12.2024 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhubaneswar and remits the matter to the said authority for deciding the appeal on its merit,

With the observation and directions issued, the writ petition stands disposed of. As a result of the disposal of the writ petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.