Case Law Details
Imaging Solutions (P) Ltd. Vs State of Haryana and others (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
In the case of Imaging Solutions (P) Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and Others, the Punjab and Haryana High Court addressed the dismissal of an appeal by the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Haryana, due to incomplete fee payment. The appellant had paid ₹10,000 out of the required ₹20,000 (₹10,000 each for CGST and HGST) mandated under the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The appeal was deemed incomplete and dismissed as not maintainable. The appellant argued that they were willing to pay the balance fee, but the Authority did not provide an opportunity to rectify the deficiency.
The Court acknowledged that while the appeal was incomplete due to the shortfall in the requisite fee, it could not be deemed non-maintainable. It emphasized that appellants must be informed of any deficiencies and allowed an opportunity to address them before outright dismissal. The State counsel agreed that the appeal should have been heard on merits had the remaining fee been deposited.
The High Court directed the Appellate Authority to hear the petitioner’s appeal on merits, provided the pending ₹10,000 fee was deposited within a week. This judgment underscores the principle that procedural deficiencies should not obstruct substantive justice, and authorities must offer appellants an opportunity to rectify errors before dismissing appeals. Pending applications were also disposed of accordingly.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
1. By way of present writ petition, petitioner assails the order dated 16.07.2024 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Haryana. While passing order under Section 101(1) of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the Appellate Authority has found that the appellant had failed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rs.5,000/- for the CGST + Rs.5,000/- for HGST) as fee for hearing of the appeal while the appellant was required to deposit a total sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs.10,000/- for CGST + Rs.10,000/- for HGST) as fee. The Authority has therefore, held that the appeal was incomplete for want of deposition of the requisite fee, as mandated under the GST law and while dismissing the appeal, it held that the appeal to be rejected as not maintainable.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner was ready to deposit the requisite fee, the Authority did not allow the petitioner to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- and has wrongly dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.
3. It is further submitted that while the appeal may be held to be incomplete and incompetent for want of deposition of fee it could not be held to be not maintainable.
4. Advance notice was issued to the State/respondent. Learned State counsel submits that the appeal was rightly dismissed as incompetent and incomplete for want of deposition of the requisite fee. However, she fairly states that if the petitioner would have deposited the remaining amount, the appeal should have been heard on merits and would not be held to be not maintainable.
5. We appreciate the stand taken by the State and dispose of the present writ petition with directions to the Appellate Authority to hear the appeal preferred by the petitioner on merits, subject to the petitioner depositing the remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- within a period of one week from today.
6. As we hold that on account of the non-payment of the requisite fee, an appeal cannot be dismissed as not maintainable, and in fact, before the Appellate Authority takes up any appeal, the appellant should be informed of any deficiency and be given a chance to deposit and remove the deficiency, if any.
7. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is allowed.
8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Author Bio
