N. R. Constructions vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Facts

The petitioner, N.R. Constructions, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 01.08.2022 passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals), Faridabad. This order had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the revocation of their GST registration. The dismissal was based on the petitioner's failure to submit a certified copy of the impugned order. The petitioner also contended that the appellate order was passed without providing an opportunity of hearing. The revenue, represented by the State counsel, submitted a memo dated 24.02.2023 detailing an amendment to Sub Rule (3) of Rule 108 of the HGST Rules, 2017, effective from 26.12.2022.

Held

The Court allowed the petition and set aside the order dated 01.08.2022 passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals). 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 due to the amendment of Sub Rule (3) of Rule 108 of the HGST Rules, 2017, effective from 26.12.2022. This amendment was reiterated to the First Appellate Authorities vide a letter dated 24.02.2023. Consequently, the reason for dismissing the petitioner's appeal (non-submission of a certified copy) was rendered invalid. The Court directed the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on merits expeditiously, taking into consideration the photocopy of the impugned order. The issue regarding the lack of opportunity of hearing was implicitly addressed by remanding the matter for a decision on merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the Appellate Authority for non-submission of a certified copy of the impugned order was justified, considering the subsequent amendment to Rule 108(3) of the HGST Rules, 2017? (Question of law). 2. Whether the impugned appellate order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice by not affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner? (Question of mixed law and fact). Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the appellate order was passed without a proper hearing. They also implicitly relied on the subsequent amendment to Rule 108(3) of the HGST Rules, 2017, which altered the requirement for submitting certified copies of orders. Revenue's contentions: The revenue brought to the court's notice the amendment to Sub Rule (3) of Rule 108 of the HGST Rules, 2017, vide notification dated 25.01.2023, which came into effect from 26.12.2022. This amendment, as presented by the State counsel, did away with the mandatory requirement of submitting a certified copy of the decision or order appealed against.