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 an 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 as no appeal was filed until August 10, 2022. The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court's suo motu order extending limitation periods should be considered, and that Circular No. 53 of 2023 provided for filing appeals under certain conditions.

Held

The Court held that the dismissal of an appeal solely on the ground that the entire demand has been satisfied is unsustainable. The Court reasoned that even if the petitioner had voluntarily paid the amounts, it would not waive the right of appeal. In this case, the payment was made under coercive steps, not voluntarily. The Court further noted that the Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 extended limitation periods, and while the appeal filing date of August 10, 2022, was beyond the period provided by the Supreme Court, Circular No. 53 of 2023 provided a mechanism for filing appeals for proceedings under Section 73 or 74 against orders passed prior to March 31, 2023, upon payment of 12.5% of the tax in dispute. Considering that the entire demand was satisfied and the appeal was dismissed after the issuance of Circular No. 53 of 2023, the Court found that the circular should be applied. The Court set aside the appellate order dated September 19, 2023, and restored the appeal to the file of the First Appellate Authority for consideration on merits. If any modification is made in the appeal, the assessee would be entitled to a refund of the amounts recovered.

Key Issues

1. Whether the dismissal of an appeal solely on the ground that the entire demand has been satisfied by the assessee is legally sustainable, particularly when the payment was made under coercive steps and not voluntarily? (Question of law) 2. Whether the benefit of the Supreme Court's Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, extending limitation periods due to the pandemic, should be applied to the petitioner's appeal, considering the order date and the appeal filing date? (Question of law) 3. Whether Circular No. 53 of 2023, allowing appeals to be filed under specific conditions for proceedings under Section 73 or 74 against orders passed prior to March 31, 2023, is applicable to the petitioner's case, especially given that the appeal was dismissed after the circular's issuance? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that payment under coercive steps does not waive the right to appeal. They contended that the Supreme Court's extension of limitation periods should be applied, as the appeal filing date fell within the period affected by the suspension of limitation. Furthermore, they argued that Circular No. 53 of 2023 should be applied retrospectively or at least considered, as the appeal was dismissed after its issuance and the conditions for filing were met, particularly since the entire demand was satisfied. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents argued that the appeals were dismissed because the entire demand was satisfied, and no appeal was filed within the prescribed period. They relied on the fact that the appeal was filed on August 10, 2022, which was beyond the period extended by the Supreme Court's order.