2022 (10) TMI 184 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court sets aside order, remits matter for fresh consideration, emphasizing procedural requirements and natural justice principles.

The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration, ... Principles of natural justice - whether appeal was barred by limitation - impugned order passed without providing any opportunity to the petitioner - HELD THAT:- The order impugned in the present petition has been passed without considering or appreciating the said aspects and by proceeding on the erroneous premise that the appeal was filed by the petitioner beyond the period of limitation which is factually incorrect and contrary to the material on record warranting interference by this Court in the present petition particularly when neither sufficient nor reasonable opportunity was provided by the respondent No.2 / Appellate Authority before passing the impugned order which is violative of principles of natural justice also and deserves to be quashed and the matter remitted back to respondent No.2 / Appellate Authority for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. As held by the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh and Orissa in M/S. SHREE JAGANNATH TRADERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX ODISHA, CUTTACK AND OTHERS [2021 (6) TMI 412 - ORISSA HIGH COURT] so long as the appeal was preferred electronically within the prescribed period, merely because the certified copy was subsequently filed physically by the petitioner / assessee, the said circumstance cannot be made the basis to come to the conclusion that the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period; in the instant case as stated supra, the petitioner had preferred the appeal electronically on 30.03.2019, within the prescribed period and as such, the findings recorded by the respondent No.2 / Appellate Authority that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was barred by limitation deserve to be set aside. Matter is remitted back to respondent No.2 / Appellate Authority for reconsideration afresh on all aspects of the matter, in accordance with law, excluding the aspect of limitation in preferring the appeal by the petitioner, which stands concluded in favour of the petitioner by virtue of this order - petition allowed by way of remand. Issues:1. Appeal against order dated 02.02.2019 dismissed as barred by limitation.2. Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order.3. Refund of taxes and penalty paid by the petitioner.Analysis:1. Appeal Barred by Limitation:The petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated 02.02.2019 within the prescribed period under Section 107 of the KGST / CGST Act. The petitioner submitted evidence of filing the appeal electronically on 30.03.2019 and informing the Appellate Authority about the same. However, the respondent No.2 dismissed the appeal on the grounds of limitation, stating it was filed beyond the prescribed period. The Court found that the appeal was filed within the time limit and the impugned order was based on an erroneous premise. Citing precedents from other High Courts, the Court held that filing the appeal electronically within the prescribed period is sufficient, even if the certified copy is physically filed later. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration.2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without providing any opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. The Court agreed with this contention, noting that the Appellate Authority did not afford a reasonable opportunity before dismissing the appeal. As a result, the Court found the impugned order to be in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the Court quashed the impugned order and directed the matter to be reconsidered by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law.3. Refund of Taxes and Penalty:The petitioner sought a refund of taxes and penalty already paid. While the judgment did not provide detailed analysis on this specific issue, it can be inferred that the matter was not conclusively decided in the judgment. The Court remitted the case back to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration on all aspects except the limitation issue, keeping all other contentions open for further consideration.In conclusion, the High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and remitted the matter back to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration, excluding the limitation aspect. The Court emphasized the importance of following procedural requirements and principles of natural justice in such matters.