Balaram Das vs. The Superintendent CGST And Cx Bishnupur Division And Ors

Held

The Court held that the impugned order of the appellate authority was perverse, contrary to the record, and unsustainable in law. The reasoning was that the appellate authority had incorrectly dismissed the petitioner's appeal for the financial year 2017-2018 by erroneously applying the pre-deposit requirement related to the financial year 2018-2019, for which no appeal had been filed by the petitioner. The Court found that the petitioner had indeed filed an appeal only concerning the financial year 2017-2018. Consequently, the appellate authority's order was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the appellate authority to hear and dispose of the appeal on its merits for the financial year 2017-2018, after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Balaram Das, challenged an order dated March 22, 2023, passed by the WBGST appellate authority. This order dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the adjudicating authority's common order for financial years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019. The dismissal was based on the petitioner's failure to pre-deposit 10% of the disputed tax amount of Rs. 72,116/- pertaining to the financial year 2018-2019. The petitioner contended that the appellate authority's order was illegal and unsustainable as they had not filed an appeal concerning the financial year 2018-2019, but only for the financial year 2017-2018. The respondent CGST authority could not deny this factual position.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal for financial year 2017-2018 by considering the non-compliance of pre-deposit for financial year 2018-2019, when no appeal was filed for the latter year? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of appellate procedure and the scope of appeal). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the appellate authority's order was illegal and unsustainable due to a non-application of mind. They contended that they had only filed an appeal against the adjudication order for the financial year 2017-2018 and not for the financial year 2018-2019. Therefore, the pre-deposit requirement for the latter year was irrelevant to their pending appeal. Revenue's arguments: The respondent CGST authority, represented by Mr. Dey, was unable to deny or contradict the petitioner's factual assertion that the appeal was confined only to the financial year 2017-2018.