Tvl. Fabro Gaarden vs. The State Tax Officer (Int)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. FABRO GAARDEN, had its vehicle intercepted on December 4, 2023. To secure the release of the vehicle and goods, the petitioner paid a penalty of Rs. 5,15,412/- under protest. The first respondent, The State Tax Officer (INT), passed an adverse order on October 13, 2024. The petitioner filed a manual appeal before the second respondent, The Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) (Appeal), on January 4, 2025, as the web copy of the order was not immediately available. After obtaining the web copy, the petitioner filed another appeal on July 21, 2025, which was rejected by the appellate authority as belated. This writ petition challenges both the order of the first respondent and the rejection of the appeal by the second respondent.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner could not be blamed for the rejection of their appeal as belated, given that they had filed a manual appeal in time. Consequently, the order of the second respondent rejecting the appeal was set aside. The matter was remitted to the file of the second respondent, who was directed to number the appeal. The Court also noted the petitioner's submission that the e-invoice was now available and permitted the petitioner to place this additional material before the appellate authority. The appellate authority was directed to consider this additional material, along with all other contentions of the petitioner, and dispose of the appeal on merits and in accordance with law within three months. The order impugned was set aside only concerning the second respondent.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's appeal by the second respondent as belated is sustainable in law, considering the petitioner had filed a manual appeal in time. 2. Whether the penalty imposed by the first respondent is liable to be quashed, particularly in light of the availability of the e-invoice. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that they filed a manual appeal within the prescribed time, and therefore, the subsequent rejection of their appeal as belated by the second respondent was incorrect. They also contended that the impugned action was taken due to the driver not possessing the e-invoice at the time of interception, but the e-invoice is now available. The petitioner relied on the decision in Kumar Cargo Solution Vs State of U.P. ([2024] 105 GST 923) to support their claim. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents.