Tvl.Ginu Construction vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Ginu Construction, filed writ petitions challenging assessment orders dated January 8, 2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) for the tax periods 2017-2018 to 2020-2021. The petitioner had appealed these orders to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) on April 5, 2024. However, the appeals were rejected on November 29, 2024, by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner on the grounds that the petitioner failed to pay 10% of the pre-deposit amount at the time of filing the appeals, as required by Section 107(6)(b) of the GST Act. The petitioner contended that this failure was due to inadvertence and that the rejection orders were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as no sufficient opportunity for a hearing was provided.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's failure to deposit the pre-deposit amount at the time of filing the appeals was due to inadvertence. In the interest of justice, the Court directed the petitioner to deposit the required pre-deposit amount within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Upon such payment, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner was directed to restore the appeals on file. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner was further directed to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after providing a due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within two months thereafter. The Court found that the rejection of appeals without considering the inadvertent omission and without providing a hearing was not in line with the principles of natural justice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's appeals by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, for non-payment of the pre-deposit amount at the time of filing, is legally sustainable, particularly in light of the principles of natural justice, and if Section 107(6)(b) of the GST Act mandates strict adherence without considering inadvertent omissions? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the failure to pay the 10% pre-deposit was an inadvertent omission. They contended that the rejection orders passed by the second respondent were illegal, without jurisdiction, and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as no sufficient opportunity for a personal hearing was granted. They sought to have the assessment orders re-done after providing a personal hearing. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue argued that the rejection orders were in accordance with Section 107(6)(b) of the GST Act, which makes the payment of the pre-deposit amount a mandatory condition precedent for the hearing of an appeal. They asserted that the petitioner's failure to comply with this statutory requirement justified the rejection of the appeals.