Galaxy Construction vs. Union Of INDIA And Anr

Held

The Court held that the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, was dismissed on the ground of delay, without considering the petitioner's submission that the entire tax component had been paid via GST DRC-03 dated February 5, 2020. The respondents suggested remanding the matter for adjudication of factual issues and detailed scrutiny. Consequently, the Court set aside the order dated April 22, 2024, which dismissed the appeal. The Appellate Authority is directed to re-adjudicate the appeal on its merits expeditiously, preferably within 12 weeks from the communication of this order. The ratio is that an appeal should not be dismissed on technical grounds like delay if there is a substantial issue regarding tax payment that requires adjudication on merits, especially when the revenue does not oppose a remand for such adjudication.

Facts

The petitioner, Galaxy Construction, is challenging an order that dismissed its appeal. The petitioner claims it had already paid the entire tax component through a GST DRC-03 dated February 5, 2020, which the proper officer allegedly did not consider. The appeal filed under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, dated April 22, 2024, was dismissed solely on the grounds of delay. The respondents, including the Union of India and the State, did not contest the petitioner's claim of payment but suggested remanding the matter for adjudication of factual issues and detailed scrutiny of records.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal on the ground of delay without considering the payment of tax made via GST DRC-03 dated February 5, 2020? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that it had already made the entire tax payment and that this crucial aspect was overlooked by the Appellate Authority, leading to an erroneous dismissal of the appeal on delay. Revenue/State's contention: The respondents, represented by learned counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's assertion of having made the payment. Instead, they submitted that the matter might require remand back to the Appellate Authority for adjudication of factual issues and detailed scrutiny of records.