M/S.Creators Engineering Interiors PVT LTD vs. The Commercial Tax Officer/State Tax Officer (Ins) Ii

Held

The Court condoned the delay of 44 days in filing the appeals before the 2nd respondent, considering it to be genuine. This condonation was made subject to the petitioner paying 10% of the disputed tax over and above the statutory deposit already made at the time of filing the appeals. The Court directed the petitioner to make this payment within three weeks of receiving the order. Upon receipt of this payment, the 2nd respondent was instructed to accept the petitioner's appeals on record and dispose of them in accordance with the law, which would include affording a personal hearing. The Court did not delve into the merits of the original orders passed by the 1st respondent or the grounds for rejection of the rectification application, focusing instead on the procedural irregularity of the 2nd respondent's rejection of the appeals without a hearing and the issue of delay. The primary ratio is that appellate authorities must provide a personal hearing before rejecting appeals, especially when a delay can be condoned upon certain conditions.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.Creators Engineering & Interiors Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging orders from the 1st respondent (Commercial Tax Officer/State Tax Officer) and the 2nd respondent (Appellate Deputy Commissioner). The 1st respondent issued an order in DRC 07 on July 8, 2024, confirming proposals despite the petitioner's representation. Subsequently, the 1st respondent rejected the petitioner's application for rectification on November 26, 2024. The petitioner appealed to the 2nd respondent, who rejected the appeals, citing a delay of 44 days, without affording a personal hearing. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and requested a fresh order from the 2nd respondent after a personal hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order passed by the 1st respondent in DRC 07, dated July 8, 2024, and the subsequent rejection of the rectification application on November 26, 2024, are illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, particularly concerning the alleged non-consideration of the petitioner's representation? 2. Whether the 2nd respondent's rejection of the petitioner's appeals, solely on the ground of a 44-day delay without granting a personal hearing, is contrary to the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the GST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the orders were cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. They specifically argued that the 2nd respondent failed to provide an opportunity for a personal hearing as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the GST Act, 2017, when rejecting their appeals. The petitioner also offered to pay 10% of the disputed tax over and above the statutory deposit made at the time of filing the appeals. Respondents' Arguments: The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents submitted that the petitioner's appeals would be considered if they paid 10% of the disputed tax in addition to the statutory deposit already made.