M/S. S.S. Traders vs. The State Of Haryana And Others

Held

The Court noted that the Revisional Authority, exercising powers under Section 108 of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, had annulled the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals). The Revisional Authority had remanded the matter back to the Appellate Authority for adjudication of the appeal on its merits. In light of this development, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was rendered infructuous. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's original grievance regarding the dismissal of their appeal by the Appellate Authority, as the matter was already being reconsidered by the Appellate Authority following the Revisional Authority's order.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s S. S. Traders, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging an order dated 6.12.2018 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), HGST, Panchkula. This appellate order had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an order in original dated 19.4.2018. The dismissal was based on the ground that a certified copy of the order in original was not appended, although the petitioner claimed the original order had been filed. During the hearing, the State counsel informed the Court that the Revisional Authority, exercising powers under Section 108 of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, had annulled the impugned appellate order and remanded the case back to the Appellate Authority for adjudication on merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate order dated 6.12.2018, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal on the technical ground of non-filing of a certified copy of the order in original, was sustainable, especially when the petitioner contended that the original order was indeed appended. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the appellate authority erred in dismissing the appeal on a technicality, as the original order in original had been duly appended. The petitioner sought to quash the appellate order. Revenue's contention: The State counsel, on instructions, submitted that the Revisional Authority had already annulled the impugned appellate order and remanded the matter back to the Appellate Authority for a decision on merits. The State did not contest the petitioner's claim regarding the procedural defect in the appellate order.