M/S Sri Balaji Solar Energies vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Central Tax

Facts

The petitioner, M/s SRI BALAJI SOLAR ENERGIES, filed a writ petition challenging an order by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II), Hyderabad, dated December 6, 2023. This order rejected the petitioner's appeal on the grounds of non-payment of the pre-deposit amount within the stipulated time. The petitioner contended that the pre-deposit of Rs. 2,42,603/- was actually made on October 9, 2023, along with the appeal memo, as evidenced by a challan. The revenue initially stated that the payment was made on October 7, 2023, but due to technical reasons, it was credited on December 5, 2023. The Order-in-Original was passed on July 12, 2023, and uploaded on October 20, 2023. The petitioner was informed of the uploaded order on December 5, 2023, the same day the amount was adjusted from the electronic cash ledger.

Held

The Court held that the Appellate Authority's rejection of the appeal on the grounds of delay and treating the filing date as December 5, 2023, was not proper, legal, or justified. The Court noted that the Department accepted the appeal was filed on October 9, 2023, and there was proof of pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed tax along with the appeal memo. The Court reasoned that the Appellate Authority should have verified if there was any fault on the petitioner's part in making the pre-deposit, rather than focusing solely on the date of adjustment from the electronic cash ledger. The fact that the Order-in-Original was uploaded on October 20, 2023, and the petitioner was informed on December 5, 2023, on which date the amount was adjusted, demonstrated the petitioner's bonafides. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Appellate Authority for consideration on its merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner was rightly rejected by the Appellate Authority on the ground of delayed pre-deposit, considering the date of actual payment versus the date of credit in the government account? (Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, and principles of natural justice). The petitioner argued that the pre-deposit was made on October 9, 2023, along with the appeal memo, and the delay in credit was due to technical reasons, not the petitioner's fault. They relied on the challan as proof of payment and the fact that the appeal was filed on the same date. The revenue contended that the payment was credited on December 5, 2023, leading to the appeal being considered filed on that date, thus making it time-barred. They acknowledged technical reasons for the delay in credit.