Velnex Medicare Vs Commissioner (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Summary: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the writ petition filed by Velnex Medicare against the Appellate Authority’s order dated 19.03.2025, which refused to entertain its appeal against the adjudicatory authority’s order dated 23.11.2023. The appeal had been rejected on the ground that the petitioner had not made the 10% pre-deposit required under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the entire disputed tax amount had already been deposited and, therefore, requiring a further deposit of 10% was unwarranted. It sought consideration of its appeal on merits. Counsel for the Revenue did not dispute that the entire disputed tax amount stood deposited. In these circumstances, the High Court held that the appeal could not have been dismissed for failure to make a separate 10% pre-deposit.
The Court also rejected the additional ground that the copy of the order was not self-certified. It held that the absence of self-certification was, at best, a curable defect, and the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to remove the deficiency rather than having its appeal dismissed outright. Consequently, the Court set aside the Appellate Authority’s order dated 19.03.2025 and remanded the matter to the First Appellate Authority for fresh consideration through a reasoned order. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Appellate Authority refusing to entertain the appeal, arising out of the order passed by adjudicatory authority dated 23.11.2023 on the ground that 10 % pre-deposit for filing of appeal has not been made in terms of Section 107 (6) of the CGST Act, 2017.
2. The short ground on which the order is impugned is that the entire disputed tax amount stood deposited, and therefore, the approach of the Appellate Authority requiring the petitioner to deposit a further amount of 10% was wholly un-called for.
3. Submission is that the petitioner’s appeal ought to have been heard on merits and the contrary view taken by the authority cannot be sustained.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents-revenue does not dispute the fact that entire disputed amount of tax stood deposited.
5. Once that be the position, the petitioner’s appeal could not have been dismissed only on the ground that 10 % pre-deposit has not been made.
6. The further ground taken that the copy of the order was not self-certified is also not sustainable, inasmuch as, the defect at best was curable and an opportunity ought to have been given to the petitioner to remove such deficiency. The straightway dismissal of the appeal on this ground also cannot be sustained.
7. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure P-5) cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the First Appellate Authority for fresh consideration of the case by passing a reasoned order.
8. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
