GST appeal rejected as "non-maintainable" u/s107-cryptic endorsement quashed for denying fair hearing; case remanded.

The dominant issue was whether rejection of an appeal under s.107 CGST Act for non-maintainability was legally sustainable and compliant with natural justice. The HC held that the appellate authority failed to consider the scope of s.107 read with s.121 and issued an unreasoned, non-speaking, cryptic endorsement, evidencing non-application of mind. Accepting the appellant's contention that it was denied adequate opportunity to urge all grounds, the HC adopted a justice-oriented approach to ensure fair hearing. The endorsement was quashed and the matter remitted to the appellate authority for fresh reconsideration in accordance with law, with liberty to raise all contentions.

---

---

Issues:
1. Quashing of the impugned endorsement dated 20.07.2022
2. Providing a fair opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner
3. Granting any other relief deemed fit by the Court

Analysis:

Issue 1: Quashing of the impugned endorsement dated 20.07.2022
The petitioner sought to quash the endorsement dated 20.07.2022, arguing that it was unreasoned, non-speaking, arbitrary, and lacked application of mind. The petitioner contended that the endorsement did not provide any reasons for dismissing the appeal, which goes against the provisions of Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court agreed with the petitioner, noting that the respondent failed to consider the appealability of the decision under Section 107 read with Section 121 of the said Act. Therefore, the Court quashed the impugned endorsement.

Issue 2: Providing a fair opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner
The petitioner also argued that they were not granted a fair opportunity to present all contentions, including those related to the maintainability of the appeal under Sections 107 and 121 of the Act. The Court found merit in this argument and observed that the petitioner should have been given a chance to present all their contentions before the respondent. As a result, the Court set aside the impugned endorsement and remitted the matter back to the appellate authority for reconsideration, emphasizing the importance of allowing the petitioner to put forth all contentions in support of their claim.

Issue 3: Granting any other relief deemed fit by the Court
In the interest of justice and equity, the Court granted the relief sought by the petitioner. The Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned endorsement, and directed the appellate authority to reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with the law. The Court kept all rival contentions between the parties open and refrained from expressing any opinion on the same, ensuring a fair and unbiased approach to the resolution of the dispute.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Karnataka High Court emphasized the importance of providing a fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and ensuring that decisions are made in accordance with the relevant provisions of the law. The Court's decision to quash the impugned endorsement and remit the matter for reconsideration underscores the significance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal principles in administrative proceedings.

---