Varun Bevarages Limited vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Varun Beverages Limited, is challenging the dismissal of its appeal by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals). The appeal was filed against a penalty imposed under Section 129 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, following the detention of goods and a finding of attempted tax evasion. The petitioner had already paid the entire penalty to secure the release of the goods. The appellate authority rejected the appeal on two grounds: failure to file a hard copy of the appeal and the omission to mention the amount under dispute in the appeal form (Annexure-9/A). The petitioner contends that the requirement for filing a hard copy was waived by a government notification, and the mention of 'Not Applicable' in the 'Amount under Dispute' column was due to the pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6) being fulfilled by paying the entire penalty.

Held

The Court held that the dismissal of the appeal on the ground of not filing a hard copy was incorrect, as the government had waived this requirement through a notification dated 26.12.2022. Regarding the second ground for dismissal, the Court found that while there was a procedural irregularity in mentioning 'Not Applicable' in the 'Amount under Dispute' column of Annexure-9/A, this did not warrant dismissal. The Court reasoned that the purpose of mentioning the amount under dispute is to ensure pre-deposit as per Section 107(6). The proviso to Section 107(6) requires a deposit of 25% of the penalty for appeals against orders under Section 129(3). Since the petitioner had admittedly paid the entire penalty, the pre-deposit requirement was fully met. Therefore, the appeal ought to have been entertained on merits. The Court set aside the impugned order (Annexure-9) on these technical grounds and restored the appeal before the first Appellate Authority, directing it to consider the appeal on its merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal ought to have been dismissed on the ground that a hard copy was not filed, considering the waiver of such requirement by a government notification dated 26.12.2022? (Question of law) 2. Whether the dismissal of the appeal for not mentioning the 'Amount under Dispute' in the appeal form (Annexure-9/A) was justified, given that the petitioner had paid the entire penalty imposed under Section 129(3), thereby fulfilling the pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the dismissal for not filing a hard copy was incorrect as the government had waived this requirement. Regarding the 'Amount under Dispute', they contended that the mention of 'Not Applicable' was appropriate because the entire penalty had been paid, satisfying the pre-deposit condition mandated by the proviso to Section 107(6). This payment ensured compliance with the spirit of the provision, which is to ensure pre-deposit as per Section 107(6). Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state.