Yadav Travels vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.

Held

The Court acknowledged the petitioner's grievance that the appeal was rejected due to the failure of the revenue authorities to provide clear instructions on the pre-deposit amount and the account for its deposit. The Court directed the respondents (Union of India and another) to inform the petitioner within one week the specific account into which the pre-deposit should be made. For this purpose, the petitioner was directed to present themselves before the concerned Commissioner of GST, Delhi. Furthermore, the standing counsel for the respondents was instructed to ensure a written communication is sent to the writ petitioner within a week to resolve the uncertainty. Upon the petitioner making the pre-deposit, their appeal would be heard on its merits. Consequently, the order of dismissal of the petitioner's appeal in default was set aside to this extent.

Facts

The petitioner, Yadav Travels, an unregistered dealer under the old regime, had its appeal rejected for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement. The petitioner alleges that despite numerous communications, the Commissioner and other Service Tax Authorities failed to provide the necessary information regarding the account for pre-deposit. This lack of response led to the dismissal of their appeal. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking a resolution to this procedural deadlock.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's appeal for want of pre-deposit, due to the alleged failure of the revenue authorities to provide necessary information, is sustainable in law? The petitioner argued that the rejection of their appeal was unjust as they were willing to comply with the pre-deposit requirement but were unable to do so due to the lack of clear instructions from the concerned authorities. They contended that the authorities' silence and failure to respond to their communications exacerbated the situation. The revenue authorities, represented by their standing counsel, accepted notice and did not present any arguments against the petitioner's plea for a clear directive on pre-deposit.