M/S Ritvik Steel Private Limited Thru. Director Mr. Amit Kumar vs. State Of U.P Thru. Addl Chief Secy. State Tax Civil Sectt., Govt. Of U.P., Lko. And Others

Held

The Court held that the appellate authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal. The reasoning was based on the concession made by the Standing Counsel for the State, who acknowledged that the order of dismissal was erroneous. The Court accepted the argument that the appellate authority should have transmitted the appeal to the proper officer who had the territorial jurisdiction to decide it, rather than dismissing it outright. The ratio decidendi is that procedural technicalities, particularly in online filing, should not lead to the dismissal of an appeal if a proper forum exists, and the appellate authority has a duty to ensure the appeal reaches the correct adjudicating officer. The Court quashed the order dated November 17, 2022, and directed the transmission of the petitioner's appeal to the proper officer for decision within two months.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Ritvik Steel Private Limited, registered in Bahraich, challenged an order dated November 17, 2022, which dismissed their appeal. This appeal was against an order dated September 16, 2021, passed under Section 129 of the GST Act by the seizing authority/officer at Lucknow. The appellate authority at Lucknow dismissed the petitioner's appeal, holding it was beyond its jurisdiction as the petitioner was registered in Bahraich. The petitioner argued that the appellate authority should have either returned the appeal for filing before the correct authority or transferred it for decision, rather than dismissing it outright, especially since the appeal was filed online.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority, upon finding that the appeal was filed before it despite the petitioner being registered in a different jurisdiction, erred in dismissing the appeal instead of transmitting it to the proper authority for adjudication? (Question of law, turning on principles of procedural fairness and jurisdiction under GST law). Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that the appellate authority acted erroneously by dismissing the appeal. They contended that in cases of jurisdictional error, especially with online filing, the appellate authority should have either returned the appeal for refiling before the correct officer or transferred it for proper adjudication, citing reliance on various circulars. The petitioner maintained that dismissal was not the appropriate course of action. Respondent (State): The Standing Counsel, based on instructions received, conceded that the order dated November 17, 2022, was erroneous. They stated that the appellate authority should have transmitted the appeal for adjudication before the proper officer who possessed the territorial jurisdiction to decide it.