M/S.Panda Enterprises, Cuttack vs. CT And GST Officer, Cuttack Ii

Facts

M/s. Panda Enterprises (Petitioner) challenged the cancellation of its GST registration certificate, effective from January 1, 2021, to July 31, 2021, due to non-filing of returns and non-deposit of taxes. The Petitioner filed an appeal before the Joint Commissioner of CT & GST on January 4, 2022. The appeal was summarily rejected on May 21, 2022, for not enclosing a certified copy of the order being appealed against. The Petitioner argued that a downloaded copy was enclosed and the rejection was hyper-technical, especially as no GST Appellate Tribunal was yet constituted. The revenue did not dispute the Petitioner's contentions.

Held

The Court held that the interest of justice would be best served by affording the Petitioner an opportunity to furnish the certified copy of the order dated September 9, 2021. The appellate authority was directed to restore the appeal to the file upon the Petitioner furnishing the certified copy on or before August 10, 2022. Subsequently, the appellate authority is to proceed with the matter in accordance with law and decide the appeal on its own merit. The reasoning was based on the conceded position by the revenue and the principle that justice should not be denied on hyper-technical grounds, especially when a procedural defect can be rectified. The ratio decidendi is that appellate authorities should grant reasonable opportunities to parties to cure defects in filings, particularly when such defects are minor and rectifiable, and when the absence of higher appellate forums might leave taxpayers without recourse.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority erred in rejecting the appeal summarily for non-enclosure of a certified copy of the order appealed against, despite a downloaded copy being provided, thereby violating principles of natural justice? (Section 107 of the Odisha Goods & Services Tax, 2017 and Rule 108(3) of the OGST Rules) Petitioner's Arguments: - The appellate authority should not have rejected the appeal on a hyper-technical ground, as a downloaded copy of the order was enclosed. - The appellate authority should have adopted a pragmatic approach rather than a pedantic one. - The Petitioner should have been given an opportunity to rectify the defect, especially given the absence of a constituted GST Appellate Tribunal. - Relied on the judgment in M/s. ATLAS PVC PIPES LIMITED VS. STATE OF ODISHA & OTHERS (W.P.(C) NO. 14163 of 2022) for the proposition that an opportunity should be granted. Revenue's Arguments: - The revenue, through the Addl. Standing Counsel, did not dispute the Petitioner's proposition.