Mohammad Samsuddin vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Revenue, State Tax, Ballygunge Charge And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Mohammad Samsuddin, challenged an order dated April 5, 2024, passed by the Senior Joint Commissioner (Appeal), State Goods and Services Tax, Kolkata South. The disputed tax amount was Rs.17,07,367/-, of which the petitioner had paid Rs.16,98,942/-. The petitioner filed an appeal on January 27, 2024, believing that substantial payment of the demand would suffice for the appeal to be heard. However, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal due to the non-payment of the prerequisite 10% of the disputed demand. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the High Court.
Held
The Court held that the appellate authority's order dated April 5, 2024, dismissing the appeal for non-payment of the prerequisite 10% deposit was not justified, given that the petitioner had already paid over 95% of the total demand. The Court reasoned that in such circumstances, where a significant portion of the demand has been satisfied, the appeal should be heard on its merits. The principle established is that substantial compliance with payment requirements, especially when a large percentage of the demand is paid, should not be a bar to the adjudication of an appeal. The Court quashed and set aside the appellate authority's order and directed the appellate authority (respondent No.2) to hear the appeal afresh within a period of three months from the date of the order. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appellate authority was justified in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of non-payment of the prerequisite 10% of the disputed demand, when the petitioner had already paid over 95% of the total demand? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of appeal filing prerequisites under GST law). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that having paid a substantial portion of the demand (Rs.16,98,942/- out of Rs.17,07,367/-), the appellate authority should have considered the appeal on merits rather than dismissing it for a technical deficiency in depositing the prerequisite amount. State's Contention: The State's counsel was present, and the judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State regarding the dismissal of the appeal. The court's decision implies that the State did not strongly oppose the petitioner's plea for a fresh hearing.
Sections Cited
Not explicitly mentioned in the provided text, but the context relates to the provisions governing appeals and pre-deposit requirements under GST law.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
11 State Tax & Ors. Mr. Debanuj Basu Thakur … … for the petitioner Mr. A. Ray Md. T.M. Siddiqui Mr. N. Chatterjee Mr. T. Chakraborty Mr. S. Sanyal … … for the State Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the total disputed amount of tax as per assessment as reflected from the appellate order dated 5th April, 2024 is Rs.17,07,367/- and the petitioner has paid Rs.16,98,942/-. After payment of tax, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 27th January, 2024 without making payment regarding 10% of the demand under dispute as the prerequisite for filing an appeal. As the petitioner was under the impression that as he has paid Rs.16,98,942/- for disputed amount of tax of Rs.17,07,367/-, the appellate authority would hear the appeal without making the demand for requisite deposit. The appellate authority after hearing the appeal, on 5th April, 2024 has dismissed the appeal for non- payment of prerequisite deposit.
Being aggrieved with the order dated 5th April, 2024, the writ petitioner has preferred this writ petition. Learned counsel for the State is present. Heard learned counsel for the parties. As the petitioner has already paid more that 95% of the demand made in the assessment order, the appellate authority being the respondent No.2 in the instant application (Senior Joint Commissioner (Appeal), State Goods and Services Tax, Kolkata South) is requested to hear the appeal afresh within a period of three months from date. The order of the appellate authority dated 5th April, 2024 is quashed and set aside. The writ petition being WPA 17801 of 2024 is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.) 2
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.