TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court overturns GST Appellate Authority decision for unfairness, stresses timely resolution, recommends 21-day notice.</h1> <h3>M/s Khandelwal Extractions Ltd. Versus State of U.P. And 6 Others</h3> M/s Khandelwal Extractions Ltd. Versus State of U.P. And 6 Others - [2019] 61 G S.T.R. 432 (All), 2019 (20) G. S. T. L. 727 (All.) Issues:Challenge to order of Authority for Advance Ruling and Appellate Authority for Goods and Services Tax - classification of Mahua De-oiled Cake and De-oiled Rice Bran, eligibility for tax input credit, procedural lapse in hearing appeal.Analysis:The petitioner, a manufacturer of vegetable oil, challenged the orders of the Authority for Advance Ruling and the Appellate Authority for Goods and Services Tax. The petitioner sought clarification on the classification of Mahua De-oiled Cake and De-oiled Rice Bran, and eligibility for tax input credit under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Authority for Advance Ruling ruled that the products were byproducts used in animal feeds and partially allowed tax input credit due to the use of raw materials for both taxable and exempted goods. The petitioner appealed this decision on 14.07.2018.The Appellate Authority scheduled a hearing for 26.09.2018, which the petitioner found to be sudden and unrealistic due to holidays. An adjournment request was made, but it was rejected by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority proceeded with an ex-parte hearing and decided the appeal on merits, leading to the present writ petition.The petitioner argued a procedural lapse by the Appellate Authority in conducting an ex-parte hearing on the first date itself. The petitioner contended that insufficient time was granted to respond to the hearing notice, issued only six days before the scheduled date. The respondent's counsels defended the proceedings, stating that the petitioner had adequate notice and failed to respond to the hearing notice.The High Court found the Appellate Authority's refusal of adjournment and ex-parte decision harsh and unreasonable, given the legislative intent of timely resolution of tax matters. The Court emphasized the need for a mechanism to notify applicants of hearing dates in advance to allow for proper preparation. It recommended electronic mail communication for hearing notices and suggested a minimum notice period of 21 days for hearings.The Court set aside the Appellate Authority's decision and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, directing the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within two months. The petitioner agreed not to seek unnecessary adjournments, and the Court's observations on notice issuance were directed to be implemented in the proceedings. The judgment aimed to streamline the appeal process and ensure fair and timely resolution of tax disputes.
TaxTMI 