Sumat Gupta And Co., Chartered Accountants vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Sumat Gupta and Co. Chartered Accountants, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 23.12.2023 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Goods and Services Tax Appeals, Jammu. The appeal was rejected due to non-payment of pre-deposit. The petitioner contended that a new password was not issued, preventing timely payment. They claimed the pre-deposit was made on 14.12.2023 after receiving the password, and an email was sent to the appellate authority. The respondents argued that the original password became inoperative, and the reissue request was made late. They also stated that the appeal was filed without the mandatory pre-deposit, citing Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Held

The Court held that there was a basic error in the impugned order. It found that the pre-deposit was factually made on 14.12.2023 and an email was sent to the appellate authority regarding this payment. The Court reasoned that once the pre-deposit has been made and accepted, the appeal could not be rejected solely on the ground that it was not submitted at the time of filing. The Court emphasized that the condition of pre-deposit is a pre-requisite for adjudication of an appeal, and since the pre-deposit was made before the adjudication of the appeal, the appellate authority ought to have examined the appeal on merits. The Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh on merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of non-payment of pre-deposit, despite the pre-deposit being made subsequently and communicated to the appellate authority, is legally sustainable under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the pre-deposit was made on 14.12.2023 after obtaining a new password, and this fact was communicated to the appellate authority. They contended that the appellate authority erred by rejecting the appeal without considering the subsequent payment, and that the pre-deposit could be made after filing the appeal, as it was done before adjudication. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the appeal was filed without the mandatory pre-deposit, which is a pre-requisite for entertaining an appeal under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. They also raised issues regarding the petitioner's original password becoming inoperative and the delay in requesting a reissue.