Jvt Trading Private Limited vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s JVT Trading Private Limited, challenged an adjudication order dated 02.02.2024 passed under Section 74 of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which required them to pay assessed tax for the financial year 2017-18. The petitioner filed a rectification application under Section 161 of the Act on 27.02.2024. While this application was pending, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court. Subsequently, on 13.08.2024, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority challenging the adjudication order. An application for condonation of delay was also filed. The petitioner informed the Appellate Authority that their rectification application was pending. However, the Appellate Authority, through an order dated 19.09.2024, dismissed the petitioner's appeal on the grounds of delay, without deciding the pending rectification application.

Held

The Court held that the Appellate Authority's order dated 19.09.2024, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal on the grounds of delay, was passed prematurely. The Court reasoned that the Appellate Authority should have first decided the petitioner's rectification application filed under Section 161 of the HGST Act, 2017, which sought to rectify the adjudication order dated 02.02.2024. The Court noted that the dismissal occurred during the pendency of this rectification application. The Court directed the respondent-State to decide the petitioner's rectification application dated 27.02.2024, but only after granting the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing and passing a reasoned order. The Court also set aside the Appellate Authority's order dated 19.09.2024. The Court ordered that the needful be done within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal on grounds of delay, despite the pendency of a rectification application filed under Section 161 of the HGST Act, 2017, seeking rectification of the adjudication order dated 02.02.2024? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the Appellate Authority's order dated 19.09.2024, dismissing their appeal, was erroneous because it was passed during the pendency of their rectification application under Section 161 of the Act. They argued that the Appellate Authority should have first decided the rectification application before dismissing the appeal. The petitioner also stated that their rectification application, though physically filed, could not be decided earlier as it was misplaced. Revenue's arguments: The State acknowledged that the petitioner's rectification application had been filed but submitted that it could not be decided earlier because it had been misplaced. The State did not otherwise contest the petitioner's claim regarding the pendency of the rectification application.