Ankush Developers Private Limited vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Ankush Developers Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 08.08.2022 passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals), Faridabad. The appellate authority had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an order revoking their GST registration. The dismissal was based on the petitioner's failure to submit a certified copy of the order under appeal. The petitioner contended that the impugned appellate order was passed without providing an opportunity of hearing. The revenue, through the State counsel, presented a memo dated 24.02.2023, which referred to an amendment in Sub Rule (3) of Rule 108 of the Haryana GST Rules, 2017, effective from 26.12.2022. This amendment removed the requirement of submitting a certified copy of the order appealed against.

Held

The Court allowed the petition and set aside the order dated 08.08.2022. The primary reason for allowing the petition was the amendment to Sub Rule (3) of Rule 108 of the HGST Rules, 2017, which came into effect from 26.12.2022. This amendment removed the mandatory requirement of submitting a certified copy of the order appealed against. The Court noted that this amendment had been reiterated to the First Appellate Authorities. Consequently, the appellate authority's decision to dismiss the appeal on the ground of non-submission of a certified copy was rendered unsustainable. The Court directed the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on merits expeditiously, after considering a photocopy of the impugned order. The issue of opportunity of hearing, though raised by the petitioner, was implicitly addressed by remanding the matter for a decision on merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of non-submission of a certified copy of the order under appeal, particularly in light of the subsequent amendment to Rule 108(3) of the HGST Rules, 2017? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Rule 108(3) of the HGST Rules, 2017). Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned appellate order was passed without granting an opportunity of hearing. They also implicitly relied on the subsequent amendment to Rule 108(3) of the HGST Rules, 2017, which removed the requirement for a certified copy. Revenue's contentions: The revenue, through the State counsel, brought to the court's notice the amendment to Rule 108(3) of the HGST Rules, 2017, which was effective from 26.12.2022. This amendment did away with the requirement of submitting a certified copy of the order appealed against and also mentioned a letter dated 24.02.2023 reiterating these amended rules to the First Appellate Authorities.