M/S Barbrik Project Limited vs. The State Of Chhattisgarh
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Barbrik Project Limited, filed an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, challenging an order. The appeal was rejected by the Commissioner of State-Tax (Appeals) on July 29, 2021. The grounds for rejection were that the appeal was not filed electronically and that the mandatory 10% deposit of the disputed amount had not been made. The petitioner contended that the original order being appealed was passed manually, justifying the manual filing of the appeal. They also stated that the 10% deposit was made. The present petition was filed before the High Court of Chhattisgarh challenging this rejection order.
Held
The Court noted the submission made by the learned State counsel that the appeal, which was filed manually, would be decided on its own merits. Given this submission, the Court found no further issues to adjudicate. The Court directed that if the manual memo of appeal has been filed, the department shall decide it on its own merit, providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a reasonable time. The petition was disposed of with this observation. The specific finding on the maintainability of a manual appeal or the validity of the 10% deposit was not explicitly detailed, as the matter was resolved by the assurance of a decision on merits.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal filed manually is maintainable when the original order under challenge was passed manually, despite the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, mandating electronic filing of appeals? 2. Whether the rejection of the appeal solely on the ground of manual filing, without considering its merits, is legally sustainable? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that since the order being appealed was passed manually, the appeal was also filed manually, which should be acceptable. They contended that rejecting the appeal on the procedural ground of electronic filing, without delving into the merits of the case, is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. They also stated that the 10% requisite deposit was indeed made. Revenue's Arguments: The State counsel, based on instructions, submitted that they would decide the appeal, which was filed manually, on its own merits.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPT No. 192 of 2021 M/s Barbrik Project Limited PRA House, 15/198-Bramh Road, P.S. And Tahsil - Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (Chhattisgarh) Pin - 497001 ---- Petitioner Versus
The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Commissioner Of State - Tax, Commercial - Tax Department, GST Bhawan, North Block, Sector-9 Atal Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
The Commissioner Of State-Tax (Appeals) Commercial-Tax Department, GST Bhawan, North Block, Sector-9, Atal Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
The Deputy Commissioner Of State-Tax, Bilaspur Division No. 01, Bilaspur ---- Respondents For petitioner : Shri S. Rajeshwara Rao, Advocate and Shri M.K. Sinha, Advocate. For State : Shri Rahul Jha, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order 29/09/2021 Heard.
Grievance of the petitioner is that order dated 29/07/2021 whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 was rejected on the ground that the same was not preferred electronically and also on the ground that the 10% of the requisite amount of the subject appeal has not b
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 Chhattisgarh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.