Mandavalli Venkateswara Rao vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the writ petition should be allowed. The reasoning was based on the fact that the GST Tribunal had not been constituted under Section 112 of the CGST Act, leaving the petitioner without a remedy to pursue further legal recourse. The Court found the situation analogous to the case cited by the petitioner from the High Court for the State of Telangana. The 2nd respondent had rejected the appeal due to an uncondonable delay of 69 days. In the interest of justice, the Court decided to condone the delay in filing the appeal and remit the matter back to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider the appeal on its merits after hearing both parties. This relief is granted on the condition that the petitioner deposits 10% of the disputed tax, in addition to any amount already deposited, within three weeks of receiving the order. The Court expressly did not decide on the merits of the original assessment.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to declare orders passed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner's appeal against an assessment order for tax and penalty under Section 74(1) of the APGST/CGST Act, amounting to ₹41,76,972/-, was rejected by the 2nd respondent on the technical ground of being filed beyond the condonable period. The petitioner argued that since the GST Appellate Tribunal had not been constituted under Section 112 of the APGST Act, 2017, they were left without a remedy and would suffer hardship if the delay was not condoned. The petitioner relied on a similar order from the High Court for the State of Telangana.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, considering the non-constitution of the GST Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the APGST Act, 2017, thereby preventing the petitioner from pursuing further legal remedies? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the rejection of their appeal on a technical ground of delay was arbitrary, especially in light of the non-constitution of the GST Appellate Tribunal. They argued that this situation leaves them without a proper forum to challenge the assessment order and would cause significant hardship. The petitioner cited a precedent from the High Court for the State of Telangana in W.P.No.27071 of 2022, where a similar writ petition was allowed and the matter remitted for reconsideration. Revenue's Arguments: The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax-II, while opposing the writ petition, submitted that if the Court were inclined to allow the petition, suitable terms might be imposed.