Time-Barred Appeal Overturned: Judicial Relief Granted with Procedural Fairness and Restoration of Appellants' Rights

HC allowed the appeal challenging the time-barred order. The court found the appeal should not be time-barred due to pending initial proceedings and the appellants' prompt response. The matter was restored to the appellate authority for a proper hearing, with directions to re-credit any excess amount from the appellants' credit ledger and provide a personal hearing opportunity.

---

---

Issues involved:
The appeal challenges the order rejecting the appeal as time-barred under the Goods & Services Tax Act, based on the initiation of fresh proceedings by the second respondent while the first respondent's proceedings were pending.

Detailed Judgment:

Issue 1: Time-barred appeal
The appellants challenged an order rejecting their appeal as time-barred, contending that they were not aware of a notice uploaded on the portal until after payment was made. The first respondent issued an intimation in March 2021, to which the appellants replied promptly. However, the matter was not further adjudicated, and a fresh summary was issued by the second respondent in September 2021. The appellants argued that the appeal was filed after the limitation period expired due to lack of notice.

Issue 2: Fresh proceedings by second respondent
The crucial question was whether the second respondent could initiate fresh proceedings when the first respondent had not concluded the initial proceedings. The first respondent did not proceed to issue a show cause notice after receiving the appellants' reply, leaving the matter pending. The second respondent's initiation of proceedings while the first respondent's matter was unresolved raised concerns about the validity of the subsequent proceedings.

Judgment Summary:
The Court found that the appeal should not be considered time-barred, given the peculiar circumstances where the first respondent's proceedings were not finalized, and the appellants had responded promptly to the initial intimation. The Court emphasized that the appeal should be decided on its merits and in accordance with the law. Consequently, the order rejecting the appeal was set aside, and the matter was restored to the appellate authority for a proper hearing and disposal.

The Court directed that any excess amount swiped from the appellants' credit ledger should be re-credited, with the appellants given an opportunity for a personal hearing. The judgment considered the specific facts and circumstances of the case to ensure a just outcome. Additionally, a typographical error in the order was corrected to reflect accurate details, ensuring clarity in the record.

---