Appeal should be heard despite delay in filing when adjudicating authority passed order without granting opportunity of being heard

Tvl. Sri Sai Traders Vs Deputy Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court)

Appeal should be heard despite delay in filing when adjudicating authority passed order without granting opportunity of being heard

The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Tvl. Sri Sai Traders v. Deputy Commissioner (ST), Goods and Services Tax Appeals, Coimbatore and Ors. [W.P. No. 12860 of 2024 dated June 07, 2024], set aside the appellate order passed by the Department, thereby, dismissing the appeal filed by the Assessee on the ground of limitation, as the order-in-original was passed without granting any opportunity of hearing.

Facts:

Tvl. Sri Sai Traders (“the Petitioner”), filed a writ petition against the appellate order dated June 07, 2024 (“the Impugned Order”) passed by the Revenue Department (“the Respondent”) wherein the appeal filed by the Petitioner before the Respondent appellate authority was dismissed on the ground that the appeal was filed beyond the limitation period as prescribed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”).

Held:

The Hon’ble Madras High Court in W.P. No. 12860 of 2024 opined that since the order in original has been passed without granting any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, therefore, the Petitioner’s appeal should be considered and order needs to be passed as per merits by the Respondent, despite delay in filing of appeal. Hence, the Impugned Order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Respondent for disposal of appeal on merits.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

An appellate order dated 02.04.2024 is assailed on the ground that the appellate authority rejected the appeal solely because such appeal was presented 29 days beyond the three month time period. An order dated 31.10.2023 was issued against the petitioner by the second respondent herein. Such order was carried in appeal before the first respondent upon remittance of the prescribed pre-deposit. Such appeal was rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the appeal was presented on 29.02.2024, whereas the period of limitation expired on 30.01.2024.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal was presented within the condonable period under Section 107 of the applicable GST enactments. Therefore, he submits that the appellate authority may be directed to consider and dispose of the appeal on merits.

3. Mr.V.Prasanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for the respondents. He submits that the appeal was rejected because the petitioner did not present an application for condoning delay.

4. The relevant facts are undisputed. The appellate order records that the order in original was communicated to the petitioner on 31.10.2023. If computed from such date, the three month period elapsed on 30.01.2024, whereas the petitioner is entitled to seek condonation of delay for further 30 days. The appeal was presented o9.02.2024 which is within the said condonable period. On perusal of the order in original, such order was issued without the petitioner being heard. In these circumstances, the interest of justice warrants that the petitioner’s appeal be considered on merits by the appellate authority.

5. For reasons set out above, the impugned order dated 02.04.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the appellate authority. The appellate authority is directed to consider and dispose of such appeal on merits without going into the question of limitation.

6. W.P.No.12860 of 2024 is disposed of on the above terms. Consequently, W.M.P.No.14030 of 2024 is closed. No costs.

****

(Author can be reached at [email protected])