Mishra Auto Parts vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the appellate authority had erred by not considering the appeal on its merits and instead dismissing it solely on the ground of delay. The Court noted the petitioner's disclosure of tax liability and ITC comparison chart from the common portal. Given that the appellate authority had not examined the case's substance, the Court found it prudent to remand the matter back to the appellate authority. The appellate authority was directed to reconsider the appeal on its merits, taking into account the observations made by the High Court. The appellate authority was instructed to hear and dispose of the appeal within 12 weeks of the order's communication, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The order passed by the appellate authority dated August 2, 2024, was set aside.

Facts

The petitioner, Mishra Auto Parts, challenged an order passed under Section 73 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017, for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019. An appeal was filed before the appellate authority under Section 107, along with the required pre-deposit. The appeal was filed beyond the prescribed time, and the appellate authority rejected it solely on the ground of delay by an order dated August 2, 2024. The petitioner argued that the proper officer failed to consider payments made in Form GSTR-3B, showing an excess payment of Rs. 15,35,557.18/-. The petitioner also claimed to have availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) in excess of entitlement, resulting in a shortfall of Rs. 15,27,794.02/-, but argued that the overall credit balance in GSTR-3B indicated an excess amount. The State did not dispute the source of the petitioner's data but argued for an inquiry.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority erred in rejecting the appeal solely on the ground of delay, without considering the merits of the case, particularly in light of the petitioner's submission regarding excess tax payment and ITC reconciliation under the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that the proper officer did not adequately consider the petitioner's GSTR-3B payments, which showed an excess of Rs. 15,35,557.18/-. They contended that despite availing ITC in excess of entitlement (Rs. 15,27,794.02/-), the overall GSTR-3B reflected a credit balance. The petitioner submitted that since the appellate tribunal was not yet constituted, the High Court should adjudicate the issue. The petitioner relied on a comparison chart downloaded from the common portal. The State respondents did not dispute the data source but argued that an adequate inquiry was necessary.