Eversub INDIA Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Held

The Court held that once the petitioner had moved an application for rectification, contending that the statutory deposit had been made and therefore the appeal should be heard on merits, it would be in the fitness of things for the competent authority to examine this aspect. The Court found that the fact that the application was uploaded before the Ist Appellate Authority (AAR) and not before the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR) would not be a valid ground to non-suit the petitioner's appeal. The Court directed the AAR to examine the rectification application filed by the petitioner. If it is found that the petitioner has made the pre-deposit in terms of the statutory requirement, the Appellate Authority shall restore the proceedings of the appeal and dispose of the matter by passing a speaking order on merits. If the Appellate Authority finds that the statutory amount has not been deposited, the petitioner shall be at liberty to do so within one week of such direction.

Facts

The petitioner, Eversub India Private Limited, is aggrieved by an order passed by the Haryana Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling under Section 101(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Appellate Authority dismissed the petitioner's appeal for non-deposit of statutory fee, which amounted to Rs. 20,000/-. The petitioner subsequently filed a rectification application before the Appellate Authority, asserting that they had already deposited Rs. 50,000/- and that the Appellate Authority's conclusion of non-deposit was factually incorrect. The petitioner also contended that the rectification application was e-filed before the Appellate Authority, not the Authority for Advance Ruling, as the latter's order had not been uploaded. The revenue opposed the writ petition, arguing that the rectification application should have been filed before the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR) and not the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR).

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's appeal before the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) was liable to be dismissed for non-deposit of the statutory fee of Rs. 20,000/-, when the petitioner claims to have deposited Rs. 50,000/-. 2. Whether the petitioner's application for rectification, contending factual incorrectness regarding the deposit, was appropriately filed before the AAR, or if it should have been filed before the AAAR. Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the conclusion of the Appellate Authority regarding non-deposit of the statutory fee was factually incorrect, as they had deposited Rs. 50,000/-. They also contended that the rectification application was correctly filed before the AAR as the order of the AAAR had not been uploaded, and that the physical filing before the AAR should not be a ground to dismiss the appeal. Revenue's contentions: The revenue opposed the writ petition on the ground that the application for rectification ought to have been filed before the AAAR and not before the AAR.