Pratap Kundu vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Facts

The appellant, Pratap Kundu, challenged an adjudication order passed by the CGST authorities through a writ petition (W.P.A. 21216 of 2022). The learned writ court dismissed the writ petition, observing that this dismissal would not prevent the CGST authorities from considering the appellant's representation dated June 10, 2022. The appellant then filed the present appeal (M.A.T. 1948 of 2022) against this order. An application (I.A. No. CAN 3 of 2024) was also filed to restore the appeal, which had been dismissed for default. This restoration application was allowed, and the appeal was restored.

Held

The Court held that directing the CGST authorities to consider the representation would serve no useful purpose. Instead, the proper course of action for the appellant is to file a statutory appeal. The Court modified the order of the learned Single Bench to grant the appellant liberty to file a statutory appeal before the appellate authority. If filed within 60 days of receiving a server copy of the judgment, the appellate authority must entertain the appeal, provided the pre-deposit conditions are met, and not reject it solely on the grounds of limitation. The Court did not explicitly decide on the merits of the original adjudication order or the representation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its appellate jurisdiction, should direct the CGST authorities to consider the appellant's representation, as suggested by the writ court's order, or if a statutory appeal is the appropriate recourse. Contentions: Petitioner/Appellant: Argued that the writ court's observation regarding the consideration of the representation was a viable path forward. Revenue/State: Contended that the proper course for the appellant was to file a statutory appeal, implying that the writ court's suggestion was not the most effective or intended procedure.