Case Law Details
J.V.K. Industries Vs Union of India (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
In a recent judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has granted relief to a petitioner by allowing the condonation of delay in filing a Goods and Services Tax (GST) appeal. This decision has far-reaching implications for the petitioner and showcases the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and access to legal remedies.
Detailed Analysis: The petitioner, V.K. Industries, filed a writ petition challenging an order that rejected their appeal against a Refund Order issued by the 3rd respondent, levying a substantial GST amount. The dispute arose from the assessment of tax for the period from April 2018 to March 2019. The petitioner’s claim was that the assessment had wrongly disallowed Input Tax Credit (ITC), resulting in the substantial tax liability.
The 2nd respondent, responsible for deciding the appeal, rejected it on the grounds of a technicality – the appeal was filed beyond the permissible condonable period. This decision left the petitioner in a precarious situation, as they were unable to pursue the appeal further due to the non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal as required under the APGST Act, 2017.
The petitioner approached the High Court through a writ petition, arguing that unless the delay in filing the appeal was condoned, they would face severe hardships. The Court considered the merits of the case, the absence of an Appellate Tribunal, and the fact that similar matters had been allowed previously.
Consequently, the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the writ petition and decided to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The matter was remitted back to the 2nd respondent with instructions to consider the appeal on its merits, allowing both parties to present their arguments. However, the petitioner was required to deposit 10% of the disputed tax amount over and above the sum already deposited within three weeks from the receipt of the court’s order.
This judgment underscores the significance of adhering to procedural timelines and taking legal recourse when necessary. It also highlights the importance of access to legal remedies, ensuring that individuals and businesses can seek justice when faced with disputes related to tax matters.
Conclusion: The Andhra Pradesh High Court’s decision to condone the delay in filing the GST appeal brings relief to the petitioner, allowing them to present their case on its merits. This judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and underscores the significance of access to legal remedies for individuals and businesses facing tax-related disputes.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
The challenge in this writ petition is to the Order/Endorsement vide A.O.No.DIN3718042358644 in Special Appeal No.GST/VZM/ 484/2022-23, dated 18.04.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the Refund Order passed by the 3rd respondent levying tax of Rs.43,74,241/- for the tax period from April 2018 to March 2019.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner Ms. Jyothi Ratna Anumolu, learned Deputy Solicitor General for respondent No.1 and learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax-II for respondent No.2 & 3.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the 3rd respondent has wrongly assessed the petitioner’s tax period 2018-19 for an amount of Rs.46,62,622/- by disallowing the due ITC and challenging the same the petitioner filed the appeal, but the same was rejected on a technical ground that the appeal was filed beyond the condonable period. The learned counsel further submits that since the Appellate Tribunal has not been constituted U/s 112 of APGST Act, 2017 to carry the matter to the Appellate Tribunal, the writ petition is filed and unless the delay is condoned and the petitioner is given an opportunity to pursue the appeal, petitioner will be put to much hardship.
4. Learned Government Pleader while opposing the writ petition would submit that, in case the Court inclined to allow the writ petition, suitable terms may be imposed.
5. As can be seen from the impugned order dated 18.04.2023, the 2nd respondent has rejected the appeal on the ground that the appeal was filed with an uncondonable delay period of 120 days.
6. Having regard to the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and on a conspectus of the facts involved in the matter and also having regard to the fact that similar matter in W.P.No.9608 of 2023, was allowed by this Court and in view of the fact that the Appellate Tribunal has not yet been constituted under the provisions of APGST Act, 2017, we allow the writ petition and condone the total delay in filing the appeal and remit the matter back to the 2nd respondent for considering the appeal and pass an appropriate order after hearing both parties on the condition of petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax over and above the amount said to have been deposited by the petitioner within three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
