Sight And Sound INDIA Private Limited vs. The Commissioner Of SGST & Anr.

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner should be permitted to file an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, before the Appellate Authority. The reasoning was based on the circumstances presented, allowing the Petitioner to challenge the impugned order. The Court directed that if the appeal is filed by January 31, 2026, along with the requisite pre-deposit, it shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Instead, the appeal shall be adjudicated on its merits by the Appellate Authority. The Court did not address the merits of the demand itself, leaving that to be decided by the Appellate Authority. No specific issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

Sight and Sound India Private Limited (Petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging an order dated February 27, 2025, passed by the Sales Tax Officer Class II/Avato Ward 88, Zone 8, Delhi (Respondent). The impugned order confirmed a demand against the Petitioner for the tax period April 2020 to March 2021. This order was issued pursuant to a Show Cause Notice dated November 20, 2024, which fixed the personal hearing for December 20, 2024. The Petitioner filed a reply to the SCN on January 9, 2025, but did not attend the personal hearing, after which the impugned order was passed. The High Court noted the circumstances and permitted the Petitioner to file an appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner can file an appeal against the impugned order dated February 27, 2025, passed by the Sales Tax Officer Class II/Avato Ward 88, Zone 8, Delhi, considering the timeline of events. This issue turns on the interpretation and application of Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, concerning the limitation period for filing appeals. Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner, through its counsel, sought permission to file an appeal against the impugned order. The primary argument was implicitly that despite the procedural history, the Petitioner should be allowed to pursue its statutory remedy of appeal. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Respondent (Commissioner of SGST & Anr.). The Court's order indicates that the Revenue did not oppose the Petitioner's request to file an appeal out of time.