Varun Beverages 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, related to the detention of goods and an alleged attempt to evade tax. The petitioner had already paid the entire penalty to secure the release of the goods. The appeal was dismissed on two grounds: (1) failure to file a hard copy of the appeal, and (2) not mentioning 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 the government, and regarding the amount under dispute, it was marked as 'Not Applicable' in the form, which is permissible when the entire penalty has been paid.

Held

The Court held that the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the Appellate Authority 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. Furthermore, the Court found that while there was a procedural irregularity in the petitioner marking 'Not Applicable' for the 'Amount under Dispute' in Annexure-9/A, this did not warrant dismissal. The Court reasoned that the proviso to Section 107(6) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, mandates a pre-deposit of 25% of the penalty for appeals against orders under Section 129(3). Since the petitioner had admittedly paid the entire penalty, the purpose of ensuring pre-deposit was fulfilled. Therefore, the appeal should have been entertained on merits. The Court set aside the impugned order (Annexure-9) on these technical grounds and restored the appeal to the file of the first Appellate Authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal before the Appellate Authority ought to have been dismissed for non-filing of a hard copy, given the government's waiver of this requirement by notification dated 26.12.2022? (Question of law) 2. Whether the appeal before the Appellate Authority ought to have been dismissed for not mentioning the 'Amount under Dispute' in the appeal form (Annexure-9/A), when the petitioner had admittedly paid the entire penalty imposed under Section 129(3) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the dismissal on the ground of not filing a hard copy was incorrect as the government had waived this requirement. Regarding the amount under dispute, the petitioner contended that marking it as 'Not Applicable' in Annexure-9/A was justified because the entire penalty had been paid, and the proviso to Section 107(6) requires a pre-deposit of 25% of the penalty, which was fulfilled by paying 100%. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent revenue authorities.