Ajaz Ahmad Mir vs. Union Territory Of J And K And Ors. (Sales Tax)
Held
The High Court held that the petitioner deserves one opportunity to have his appeals adjudicated on merits. While acknowledging the dismissal by the appellate authority for non-compliance with the statutory pre-deposit provision, the Court found that fairly debatable issues of fact and law were involved in the orders passed by the assessing authority. Therefore, the Court decided to restore the appeals to their original number and take them up for consideration on merits, subject to the petitioner depositing 10 per cent of the disputed amount with the appellate authority within four weeks. The Court further directed that if the petitioner succeeds in his appeals, he shall be entitled to a refund of the pre-deposit within one month of the disposal of the appeals. The Court explicitly stated that there was no legal infirmity in the order passed by the appellate authority, but granted relief based on the merits of the case.
Facts
The petitioner, Ajaz Ahmad Mir, challenged two orders dated December 23, 2023, passed by the State Taxes Officer, Circle, P-Kashmir, under Section 74(9) of the GST Act, 2017, for the financial years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019. He also challenged an order dated March 26, 2024, by Appellate Authority-II, which dismissed his appeals due to non-compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement. The petitioner sought adjudication of his appeals on merits. The High Court acknowledged that debatable issues of fact and law were involved.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to have his appeals adjudicated on merits despite failing to comply with the statutory pre-deposit provision, considering the presence of debatable issues of fact and law? The petitioner argued that he should be given a chance to have his appeals heard on their merits, implying that the dismissal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit was too harsh given the nature of the dispute. The revenue/State did not explicitly record arguments against this, but the appellate authority's order, which was challenged, was based on the non-compliance with the pre-deposit provision. The High Court noted that the petitioner missed the consideration of his appeals due to this failure.
Sections Cited
Section 74(9)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 02.12.2025
Impugned in this petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are two orders both dated 23rd December, 2023, passed by the State Taxes Officer, Circle, P-Kashmir, in terms of Section 74(9) of the GST Act, 2017, for the financial years 2017-2018 and 2018- 2019 respectively.
The petitioner has also called in question the order dated 26th March, 2024, passed by the Appellate Authority-II whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed for non-compliance with the statutory pre- deposit provision.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and regard being had to the nature of the issues involved, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner d
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 High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.