M/S Suman Industries vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Suman Industries, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated January 30, 2023, passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals)-cum-Appellate Authority, Faridabad. The appellate authority had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an order of revocation of registration (in Form GST DRC-07) on the grounds that the petitioner failed to submit a certified copy of the impugned order. The petitioner contended that the appellate order was passed without providing an opportunity of hearing. The State counsel submitted a memo dated February 24, 2023, indicating an amendment to Sub Rule (3) of Rule 108 of the Haryana GST Rules, 2017, effective December 26, 2022, which altered the requirement for submitting certified copies of orders appealed against.

Held

The Court allowed the petition and set aside the order dated January 30, 2023. The Court noted that the provision requiring the submission of a certified copy of the decision or order appealed against had been done away with, as per the memo dated February 24, 2023, which had been reiterated to the First Appellate Authorities. The Court reasoned that given this change in the procedural requirement, the appellate authority's dismissal of the appeal on the ground of non-submission of a certified copy was no longer tenable. The Court directed the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on merits expeditiously, taking into consideration the photocopy of the impugned order. The issue of whether the order was passed without an opportunity of hearing was implicitly addressed by setting aside the order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration on merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal for non-submission of a certified copy of the impugned order, considering the subsequent amendment to Rule 108(3) of the HGST Rules, 2017? (Question of law) The petitioner argued that the appellate order was passed without a proper hearing and that the subsequent amendment to Rule 108(3) of the HGST Rules, 2017, rendered the reason for dismissal invalid. The petitioner relied on the amended rule which, as explained by the State counsel, removed the mandatory requirement of submitting a certified copy. The revenue/State argued that the amendment to Rule 108(3) of the HGST Rules, 2017, effective from December 26, 2022, changed the procedural requirement regarding the submission of certified copies of orders appealed against. They presented a memo dated February 24, 2023, reiterating these amended rules to the First Appellate Authorities.