S.R.Enterprises vs. The Commissioner Of State Goods And Service Tax Department

Facts

The petitioner, S.R. Enterprises, consigned goods to the 4th respondent. These goods were subject to proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act. Following a previous writ petition (WP(C) No. 25251 of 2019), the goods were released upon furnishing a bank guarantee, and the Section 129 proceedings were to be concluded. The petitioner participated in these proceedings, which resulted in a final order. However, the petitioner claims this final order was not uploaded to their portal in Form DRC-07, preventing them from filing an appeal. The revenue stated that Form DRC-07 was uploaded to the portal of the consignee, a registered dealer within Kerala, and acknowledged the petitioner's right to appeal.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner has a right to file an appeal against the final order passed under Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act. The Court acknowledged the peculiar facts and circumstances, particularly that the petitioner furnished a bank guarantee and participated in the proceedings. The Court reasoned that denying the petitioner the right to appeal would be unjust. Therefore, the Court directed the 3rd respondent (Assistant State Tax Officer) to upload a summary of the order under Section 129(3) of the Act in the petitioner's portal within two weeks. The period of limitation for filing an appeal was to be counted from the date of this upload. If an appeal and stay petition were filed within two weeks of the upload, the bank guarantee would not be encashed until the Appellate Authority decided on the stay petition. The issue of whether the initial upload to the consignee's portal was sufficient was implicitly resolved by the direction for a new upload to the petitioner's portal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has a right to file an appeal against the final order passed under Section 129(3) of the CGST/SGST Act, considering they furnished a bank guarantee and participated in the proceedings? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they are aggrieved by the non-uploading of the final order in Form DRC-07 on their portal, which prevents them from filing an appeal. They relied on their participation in the proceedings and furnishing of a bank guarantee as evidence of their locus standi to appeal. Revenue's contention: The revenue submitted that the petitioner is a dealer situated outside the State. They stated that Form DRC-07 was uploaded to the portal of the consignee, who is a registered dealer within Kerala. They did not dispute the petitioner's right to appeal but pointed out a potential duplication in Form DRC-07 upload.