Ambika Sarees Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Revenue, State Tax, Park Street Charge And Ors.

Held

The Court held that it would be prudent to remand the matter back to the appellate authority. The Court noted that 80% of the disputed tax amount had already been recovered and that the petitioner may not have had an adequate opportunity to present its case before the proper officer, with no contested decision on merits. Consequently, the order of the appellate authority dated February 5, 2024, was set aside. The Court clarified that a subsequent appeal filed after the dismissal of an appeal under Section 107 before the same authority is not permissible as it is a "non-starter." The appellate authority was directed to dispose of the appeal on merit expeditiously, preferably within 12 weeks from the communication of the order.

Facts

The petitioner, Ambika Sarees Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of its appeal by the appellate authority. The appeal, filed under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, was rejected on February 5, 2024, due to delay. The petitioner was aggrieved by an adjudication order passed under Section 73 of the said Act dated July 3, 2023, for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner claimed that notices and orders were uploaded to the "additional notice" tab of the portal, making them unaware of the proceedings, thus causing the delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner also highlighted that 80% of the disputed tax amount had already been recovered.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority erred in rejecting the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the explanation for the delay, particularly when the petitioner claims to have been unaware of the proceedings due to portal upload issues (Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017)? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that they were unaware of the adjudication proceedings under Section 73 of the said Act because the notices and orders were uploaded to the "additional notice" tab of the portal. This lack of awareness led to the delay in filing the appeal. They argued that the appellate authority rejected the appeal without considering the merits, causing prejudice. They also referred to a circular dated July 11, 2024, suggesting that recovery should be stayed until the appellate tribunal is constituted, especially since 80% of the disputed amount was already recovered. Revenue/State's arguments: The State argued that the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed time limit, and the appellate authority's order rejecting the appeal was not irregular on that basis.