M/S Sasco And Sons (Legal Name Rana Itrat) vs. Assistant Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax And Another
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Sasco And Sons, challenged the rejection of their appeal by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, and another respondent. The appeal was rejected on the grounds of non-compliance with mandatory pre-deposit requirements. The petitioner contended that the adjudicating authority failed to upload Form DRC-07, preventing them from making the online pre-deposit. Consequently, the petitioner deposited the amount in cash on April 18, 2022. The impugned orders were dated May 25, 2023, and January 24, 2022.
Held
The Court held that once it was an admitted fact that the pre-deposit was made through cash, the appellate authority should not have denied the disposal of the appeal on merits. The failure to upload Form DRC-07 by the adjudicating authority was the reason for the petitioner's inability to make the online pre-deposit. The Court found no occasion to deny the appeal's disposal on merits. Consequently, the orders passed by the authorities dated May 25, 2023, and January 24, 2022, were set aside. The appellate authority was directed to decide the petitioner's appeal on merits within two months of receiving a certified copy of the order. The ratio decidendi is that procedural impediments caused by the revenue authorities should not prejudice the assessee's right to a substantive hearing on merits.
Key Issues
1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's appeal on the ground of non-compliance with mandatory pre-deposit, when the petitioner deposited the amount in cash due to the non-upload of Form DRC-07 by the adjudicating authority, is legally sustainable? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the mandatory pre-deposit could not be made online as Form DRC-07 was not uploaded by the adjudicating authority. They fulfilled their obligation by depositing the amount in cash. Therefore, the rejection of their appeal solely on the ground of pre-deposit non-compliance was unjustified. Respondent's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents.
Sections Cited
DRC-07
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:138551 Court No. - 9 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 846 of 2023 Petitioner :- M/S Sasco And Sons (Legal Name Rana Itrat) Respondent :- Assistant Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Shubham Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- Gaurav Mahajan Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondents. It is contended that the authorities had not uploaded the Form DRC-07, due to which the mandatory pre-deposit could not be deposited on-line by the assessee, and it was deposited through cash vide CPIN: 22040900241253 on 18.04.2022. The appeal of the assessee has been rejected solely on the ground that the mandatory pre-deposit has not been made. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court finds that once the Form DRC-07 was not uploaded by the adjudicating authority, the mandatory pre-deposit could not be made, and it was deposited through cash. In view of the admitted fact that the pre-deposit has been made through cash, there arises no occasion for denying the disposal of the appeal by the authority on merits. In view of the said fact, th
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.