Iklak Proprietor vs. Government Of INDIA And 3 Others
Facts
The petitioner, Iklak Proprietor, challenged an appeal order dated January 21, 2022, passed by the Commissioner, CGST (Appeals), NOIDA. This order dismissed the petitioner's appeal, filed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1994, due to the non-payment of the statutory pre-deposit. The petitioner contended that due to the financial difficulties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, they were unable to comply with the pre-deposit requirement. They sought an opportunity to make the deposit and pursue their appeal. The respondents raised a formal objection. The matter was heard by the High Court on April 20, 2022.
Held
The Court acknowledged that citizens and business entities have faced financial stringency due to COVID-19 and that the matter was recent. Consequently, the Court set aside the appeal order dated January 21, 2022, subject to the petitioner depositing the required pre-deposit amount within two weeks from the date of the order. Upon successful deposit, the appeal authority was directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner for a hearing and decide the appeal on its merits. The Court's decision was based on a humanitarian consideration of the financial impact of the pandemic, allowing the petitioner to pursue their statutory right of appeal.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to deposit the statutory pre-deposit amount to maintain their appeal, considering the financial hardship caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, and consequently, whether the order dismissing the appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement should be set aside? The petitioner argued that the COVID-19 pandemic led to financial stringency, preventing compliance with the pre-deposit requirement. They requested time to make the deposit and avail their right of appeal. The respondents raised a formal objection to this request.
Sections Cited
Section 35F
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 628 of 2022 Petitioner :- Iklak Proprietor Respondent :- Government Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Ashish Tripathi,Dhananjay Awasthi,Gaurav Mahajan Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard Sri Mahendra Kumar Yadav, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Dhannanjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 and Sri Ashish Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. 2. Challenge has been raised to the appeal order dated 21.01.2022 passed by the Commissioner, CGST (Appeals), NOIDA in Appeal No. NOI-Excus-001-APP- 892-21-22. By that order, the appeal authority has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1994. The aforesaid appeal has been dismissed on account of non-payment of statutory pre-deposit. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that arising from the spread of COVID-19, the petitioner could not comply with the onerous requirement. At the same time, he states, if some time is granted to the petitioner, he may make that deposit now and avail the right of appeal
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.