2025 (4) TMI 559 - HC - GST

Appeal Reinstated: Procedural Fairness Prevails as Evidence Dismissal Overturned and Fresh Hearing Mandated

Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. Versus The Union of India & Ors.

HC found that Respondent No. 2 improperly dismissed Petitioner's appeal by failing to consider submitted authorization evidence. The court set aside the ... Dismissal of appeal on the ground that the Petitioner did not produce documents to establish that the person signing the appeal is the authorised signatory - valid document in terms of the CGS (Appeals) Rules, 2017 or not - HELD THAT:- Respondent No. 2, during the personal hearing, directed the Petitioner to submit the proper authorization of the authorized signatory, which, in fact, was submitted to 2nd Respondent's office, in person by the authorised representative of the Petitioner and recorded the said fact vide email dated 04.05.2024. In the said email, a scanned copy of the POA was again submitted. Without considering the said submission of the POA, Respondent no. 2 rejected the appeal for want of proper authorisation. Even otherwise, if Respondent No. 2 had any further objections on entertaining any evidence or submissions, he should have put the Petitioner to notice. Denial of such opportunity violates the principles of natural justice and fair play. Further, Respondent No. 2 rejected the appeal holding that the evidence / documents submitted by the Petitioner in support of their claims are not self-certified. Such a defect is a curable defect. Respondent No. 2 ought to have given an opportunity to submit self-certified copies of the documents before rejecting the appeal. According to the Petitioner, there is no requirement of submission of self-certified copies of the documents in an appeal filed online. The Petitioner, however, undertakes to submit the self-certified copies of all the documents within 2 weeks. Conclusion - Section 161 of the CGST Act, 2017, allows for rectification of errors apparent on the record but does not permit a review of the order. The Impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 21.06.2024 and the Rectification Order dated 08.11.2024 is set aside - the Petitioner's Appeal restored to the file of Respondent No. 2 for fresh consideration on its own merits and as per law. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe Court considered the following core legal questions:1. Whether the dismissal of the Petitioner's appeal by Respondent No. 2 due to the lack of proof of authorization for the signatory was justified under the CGS (Appeals) Rules, 2017.2. Whether the rejection of the Petitioner's application for rectification of the dismissal order was appropriate under Section 161 of the CGST Act, 2017.3. Whether the principles of natural justice and fair play were violated by Respondent No. 2 in the process of dismissing the appeal.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Dismissal of Appeal Due to Lack of Proof of Authorization- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The CGS (Appeals) Rules, 2017, govern the procedural requirements for filing appeals, including the necessity for proper authorization of the signatory. The Court referenced previous decisions where similar dismissals were overturned due to procedural inadequacies.- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that Respondent No. 2 dismissed the appeal on the basis that the petitioner failed to produce a board resolution or equivalent proof of authorization. However, the Court found that the Petitioner had indeed submitted the required authorization during a personal hearing and via email.- Key Evidence and Findings: The Petitioner provided a Power of Attorney (POA) and other documents to establish the authorization of the signatory. This evidence was submitted both in person and electronically, as recorded in an email dated 04.05.2024.- Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principles of procedural fairness, determining that the evidence of authorization was sufficient and that Respondent No. 2 should have considered it before dismissing the appeal.- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court acknowledged the Respondent's position but emphasized the procedural oversight in not considering the submitted authorization evidence.- Conclusions: The Court concluded that the dismissal was unjustified, as the Petitioner had complied with the authorization requirements.Issue 2: Rejection of Rectification Application- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 161 of the CGST Act, 2017, allows for rectification of errors apparent on the record but does not permit a review of the order.- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found that Respondent No. 2 misapplied Section 161 by treating the rectification application as a request for review, rather than addressing the procedural error in the original dismissal.- Key Evidence and Findings: The Court identified that the Petitioner sought rectification to address an apparent error regarding the authorization evidence, not to alter the substantive nature of the order.- Application of Law to Facts: The Court held that the rectification application should have been considered to correct the procedural oversight.- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court dismissed the Respondent's argument that the rectification would amount to a review, clarifying the distinction between correcting procedural errors and substantive review.- Conclusions: The Court concluded that the rejection of the rectification application was improper and warranted reconsideration.Issue 3: Violation of Principles of Natural Justice- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The principles of natural justice require fair opportunity for parties to present their case and for decisions to be made based on all available evidence.- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court determined that Respondent No. 2 failed to provide the Petitioner with an opportunity to rectify the alleged deficiencies in the documentation, thus violating natural justice principles.- Key Evidence and Findings: The Court noted that the Petitioner was not given notice or an opportunity to address the issue of self-certification of documents before the appeal was dismissed.- Application of Law to Facts: The Court emphasized that procedural fairness required Respondent No. 2 to inform the Petitioner of the deficiencies and allow them to be corrected.- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court found the Respondent's procedural handling inadequate, stressing the need for adherence to natural justice.- Conclusions: The Court concluded that the dismissal violated natural justice, necessitating a fresh hearing.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS- The Court set aside the Impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 21.06.2024 and the Rectification Order dated 08.11.2024, restoring the Petitioner's Appeal for fresh consideration.- The Court emphasized the necessity for Respondent No. 2 to provide a fair opportunity for the Petitioner to submit self-certified copies of documents and to conduct a hearing before making a decision.- The Court reiterated the importance of procedural fairness and the principles of natural justice in administrative proceedings.- The Court directed Respondent No. 2 to dispose of the appeal expeditiously, with a deadline set for 30th June, 2025, and to communicate the decision promptly.- The Court maintained that all contentions of the parties remain open for consideration during the fresh hearing.