Bhagwati Prasad Mundhra HUF vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Strand Road, Rajakatra And China Bazar Charge And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Bhagwati Prasad Mundhra HUF, filed an appeal on November 20, 2024, against an order dated March 3, 2023. Subsequently, the petitioner learned of Notification No. 53/2023 Central Tax dated November 2, 2023, which provides for settlement of disputes. The petitioner applied for dispute settlement. However, the authority rejected this application on April 3, 2024, stating that the petitioner had paid only 10% of the disputed tax, whereas the requirement was 12.5%. The petitioner sought a direction for the appellate authority to hear the appeal on its merits, considering the application for condonation of delay.

Held

The Court quashed the order dated April 3, 2024, passed in Form GST APL-02, which had rejected the petitioner's prayer for settlement. The Court directed the appellate authority to consider the petitioner's appeal on its merits, taking into account the application for condonation of delay. The reasoning for quashing the order was based on the petitioner's prayer for a hearing on merit after considering the condonation of delay application. The Court did not delve into the specifics of the settlement notification or the percentage of tax payment required, but rather focused on ensuring the appeal was heard. The ratio decidendi is that when an assessee seeks to pursue an appeal and also explores settlement options, and the settlement is rejected on procedural grounds, the appellate authority should still consider the appeal on its merits after addressing any delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the authority erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for settlement of dispute under Notification No. 53/2023 Central Tax dated November 2, 2023, on the ground of insufficient payment of the disputed tax. 2. Whether the appellate authority should be directed to hear the petitioner's appeal on its merits, considering the application for condonation of delay. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that they had preferred an appeal and subsequently sought to settle the dispute under the relevant notification. They argued that their application for settlement was wrongly rejected. They further prayed for a direction to the appellate authority to hear their appeal on merit after considering their application for condonation of delay. Revenue's Arguments: The respondent authorities were present. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue authorities regarding the merits of the petitioner's case or the interpretation of the settlement notification.