M/S Ravi Kumar Jaiswal (A Sole Partner Firm) vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Ravi Kumar Jaiswal, filed two writ petitions challenging the dismissal of their appeals by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal). The appeals were dismissed on the ground that the entire demand had been satisfied by the assessee, rendering the appeal unnecessary. The petitioner contended that the demand was recovered through coercive steps after the respondent authorities initiated recovery proceedings. The respondents stated that demands were created on March 13, 2020, and coercive steps were taken to recover the entire demand after no appeal was filed until August 10, 2022. The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court's suo motu order extending limitation periods during the pandemic should be considered.

Held

The Court held that the dismissal of an appeal solely on the ground of demand satisfaction is unsustainable. It reasoned that even voluntary payment does not waive the right to appeal, and certainly, payment made under coercive steps does not. The Court found that the petitioner had not paid voluntarily but rather had the demand recovered after coercive steps were initiated. The Court also considered the Supreme Court's order extending limitation periods and Circular No. 53 of 2023. It noted that the appeal was dismissed on September 19, 2023, after the issuance of Circular No. 53 of 2023. The Court concluded that the Circular should be applied, and there was no requirement for the petitioner to file a fresh appeal by March 31, 2024. The dismissal was not on merits or delay but on an untenable ground. Consequently, the Court set aside the appellate order and restored the appeal to the file of the First Appellate Authority for consideration on merits. If any modification is made, the assessee would be entitled to a refund of recovered amounts.

Key Issues

1. Whether the dismissal of an appeal solely on the ground that the entire demand has been satisfied is legally sustainable, particularly when the payment was made under coercive steps? (Question of law, turning on principles of natural justice and right to appeal). 2. Whether the benefit of the Supreme Court's Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, extending limitation periods, should be applied to the petitioner's case, considering the dates of the demand order and the appeal filing? 3. Whether Circular No. 53 of 2023, allowing appeals to be filed under certain conditions for proceedings under Section 73 or 74 against pre-March 31, 2023, orders, is applicable to the petitioner's situation? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that payment made under coercive steps does not waive the right to appeal. They also contended that the Supreme Court's extension of limitation periods should be considered. Furthermore, they relied on Circular No. 53 of 2023, asserting its applicability. They argued that the dismissal was not on merits or delay but on an unsustainable ground. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the revenue or state. However, their actions (initiating coercive steps and filing a supplementary affidavit) indicate their stance that the appeal was not maintainable due to the satisfaction of the demand and the appeal being filed beyond the prescribed limitation.