Rm Packaging Private Limtied vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Revenue, State Tax, Postabazar And Burtola Charge And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the order dated February 17, 2025, passed by the appellate authority, could not be sustained. The Court reasoned that if withdrawing the appeal was a precondition for availing the Amnesty Scheme, it was for the petitioner to exercise that option. The appellate authority was not empowered to suo motu dismiss the appeal in the absence of any such prayer for withdrawal. The Court emphasized a significant distinction between a party withdrawing an appeal and an adjudicating authority dismissing it on grounds other than a withdrawal request. The appellate authority's action of dismissing the appeal without a hearing on merits, and thereby preventing the petitioner from availing the Amnesty Scheme and also losing the opportunity to argue the appeal on merits, was deemed erroneous. The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the appellate authority for a fresh decision after hearing the appeal on merits.

Facts

The petitioner, RM Packaging Pvt. Ltd., is challenging an order dated February 17, 2025, passed by the appellate authority under the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017. This order dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an order dated April 29, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the said Act. The petitioner had sought an adjournment of their appeal to avail benefits under the Amnesty Scheme of 2024, which was subsisting until March 31, 2025. The appellate authority, observing that the petitioner had not withdrawn the appeal from the portal despite being asked to do so to opt for the Amnesty Scheme, rejected the appeal ex parte and upheld the order of the proper officer, without going into the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority was justified in dismissing the petitioner's appeal ex parte on February 17, 2025, without hearing it on merits, when the petitioner sought adjournment to avail the Amnesty Scheme of 2024? The petitioner argued that the appellate authority erred by dismissing the appeal without a hearing on merits. They contended that while withdrawal of the appeal was a precondition for the Amnesty Scheme, the appellate authority could not unilaterally dismiss the appeal, especially when the petitioner was unable to arrange funds to settle the dispute under the scheme. The petitioner asserted that dismissal prevented them from availing the Amnesty Scheme and also from pursuing their appeal on merits. The State submitted that the order was passed for the petitioner's benefit, enabling them to avail the Amnesty Scheme.