Rssg-Ot (Jv) vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the petitioners should be afforded a chance to contest the validity of the adjudication order before the appellate authority. Recognizing that the petitioners had not participated in the adjudication proceedings and had not filed a reply to the show-cause notice, leading to an ex parte order, the Court deemed it necessary to provide them with an opportunity to appeal. However, as the explanation for the delay was not fully satisfactory, the Court imposed terms. The petitioners were directed to pay costs of Rs. 20,000/- to the State Legal Services Authority within four weeks and file their appeal before the appellate authority within the same period, providing proof of cost payment. The appellate authority was directed to entertain the appeal upon these conditions. The Court clarified that the petitioners must also comply with the statutory pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6) of the said Act of 2017. If these conditions were met, the appeal would be heard on merits without objection to the delay. The Court explicitly stated that it had not examined the merits of the petitioners' case, leaving all points open for the appellate authority to decide.

Facts

The petitioners, RSSG-OT (JV) and Anr., filed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order dated August 27, 2024, passed by the proper officer under Section 73 of the WBGST Act, 2017 / CGST Act, 2017. The petitioners submitted that they could not file an appeal within the prescribed time because their authorized signatory was seriously unwell from July 25, 2023, to April 29, 2025, and the business of petitioner no. 1 had also closed prior to the show-cause notice. They claimed to have a strong case on merits, supported by documents, and that the proceedings were ex parte. The Court noted the petitioners' inability to participate in adjudication and file a reply to the show-cause notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners should be granted an opportunity to challenge the adjudication order before the appellate authority, despite the delay in filing the appeal? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that due to the serious illness of their authorized signatory and the closure of their business, they were unable to file an appeal within the statutory time limit. They asserted that they have a meritorious case and that if allowed to present their documents, the GST authorities would be satisfied. They sought an opportunity to contest the adjudication order. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment records that learned advocates for the respondents-CGST Authorities, Union of India, and the State were heard. However, it does not explicitly detail their arguments against entertaining the delayed appeal or their stance on the petitioners' claims of illness and business closure.