2025 (8) TMI 792 - HC - GST

Petition Dismissed for Delay and Non-Payment Under WBGST/CGST Act, Security of Rs.1 Crore Required

Annu Projects Limited (Formerly known as Annu Projects Pvt. Ltd.) Versus The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Behala Circle & Ors.

Annu Projects Limited (Formerly known as Annu Projects Pvt. Ltd.) Versus The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Behala Circle & Ors. - TMI 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED Whether the appellate authority was justified in rejecting the appeal filed beyond the prescribed time limit under the relevant GST provisions. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a personal hearing before the appellate authority in accordance with statutory requirements. Whether the delay in filing the appeal and failure to explain such delay affects the entitlement to relief. Whether the petitioner can be granted relief without providing adequate security or pre-deposit of the disputed tax demand. Whether the appellate authority's failure to comply with the mandatory provision of personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the GST Act vitiates the order passed. The scope of the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction in writ proceedings challenging orders under the GST Act. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Legitimacy of Rejection of Belated Appeal Relevant legal framework and precedents: The GST Act mandates filing of appeals within a specified time frame. Section 107 governs appeals to the appellate authority. Delay beyond the prescribed period requires either condonation or results in rejection of the appeal. Pre-deposit of a portion of the disputed tax is also mandated to maintain the appeal. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The appellate authority found the appeal was filed after a delay of approximately 391 days without any explanation. The petitioner also failed to respond to the show cause notice issued for the delay. The Court noted that the statutory time limit is mandatory and the petitioner's failure to file within time and to explain the delay justified the rejection. Key evidence and findings: The appeal was filed on 9th September 2024 against an order dated earlier, with a significant delay. The petitioner did not submit any justification for the delay. The appellate authority's issuance of a show cause notice and subsequent rejection was supported by the petitioner's non-response. Application of law to facts: The statutory mandate for timely appeals and pre-deposit was not complied with. The appellate authority acted within its jurisdiction in rejecting the belated appeal. Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner did not offer any explanation for the delay or respond to the show cause notice. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's contention on this ground. Conclusion: The rejection of the belated appeal was legally valid and justified. Issue 2: Right to Personal Hearing and Compliance with Section 75(4) Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 75(4) of the GST Act mandates that the proper officer shall provide an opportunity of personal hearing before passing an order. This is a fundamental procedural safeguard. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The petitioner argued that no personal hearing was granted before the appellate order. However, this issue was not raised before the appellate authority. The Court acknowledged that the statutory provision requires such opportunity but noted the petitioner's failure to raise the issue at the appropriate stage. Key evidence and findings: The appellate order did not indicate that a personal hearing was granted. The petitioner's counsel admitted the issue was not raised in the appeal proceedings. Application of law to facts: Despite procedural lapse, the Court considered the petitioner's entitlement to be heard on this ground, but only subject to adequate security being provided. Treatment of competing arguments: The State argued that the petitioner waived the right by not raising the issue earlier. The Court balanced this against the statutory mandate and the petitioner's right to be heard. Conclusion: The petitioner should be afforded an opportunity of personal hearing on the condition of furnishing appropriate security, despite the procedural lapse. Issue 3: Delay in Filing Appeal and Its Effect on Entitlement to Relief Relevant legal framework and precedents: Timely filing of appeals is essential under the GST Act. Delay without explanation disentitles the appellant from relief. Courts have consistently held that unexplained delay undermines the right to appeal. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The petitioner delayed filing the appeal by over a year and did not provide any explanation. This delay was a significant factor in denying relief. Key evidence and findings: The record showed a 391-day delay and no response to the show cause notice on delay. Application of law to facts: The petitioner's conduct in delaying the appeal was detrimental to its case and justified the appellate authority's rejection. Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner did not offer any justification for the delay, weakening its position. Conclusion: The delay in filing the appeal adversely affected the petitioner's entitlement to relief. Issue 4: Requirement of Security or Pre-Deposit for Entertaining Appeal Relevant legal framework and precedents: The GST Act requires a pre-deposit of a specified portion of the tax demand to maintain an appeal. This acts as a security to protect revenue interests. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The petitioner had made a pre-deposit but had not secured the balance amount to provide adequate security. The Court emphasized that without securing a substantial portion (Rs.1 crore in this case), the petitioner is not entitled to any interim relief or hearing on merits. Key evidence and findings: The petitioner's pre-deposit was Rs.53,00,473/-, which was insufficient to cover the security requirement. Application of law to facts: The Court directed that the petitioner must pay the balance amount within four weeks to secure the appeal and obtain a hearing on merits. Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner was unable to justify non-payment or provide alternative security. Conclusion: Adequate security is a precondition for entertaining the appeal and granting relief. Issue 5: Effect of Non-Compliance with Statutory Hearing Provision on Validity of Order Relevant legal framework and precedents: Non-compliance with mandatory procedural provisions such as personal hearing can render an order liable to be set aside or remanded. Court's interpretation and reasoning: Although the issue was not raised before the appellate authority, the Court recognized the importance of compliance with Section 75(4). The Court conditionally allowed the petitioner to be heard on this ground upon furnishing security. Key evidence and findings: The appellate order was passed without personal hearing, which is contrary to statutory mandate. Application of law to facts: The Court balanced procedural non-compliance against the petitioner's conduct and security requirement, allowing hearing only after compliance. Treatment of competing arguments: The State's reliance on waiver was acknowledged but not accepted as a bar to hearing if security is furnished. Conclusion: The order is not immune from challenge on procedural grounds, but relief is conditional. Issue 6: Scope of High Court's Supervisory Jurisdiction in Writ Proceedings Relevant legal framework and precedents: High Courts have jurisdiction under Article 226 to examine legality and procedural compliance of orders passed by statutory authorities. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction to ensure statutory compliance and fairness, while respecting the statutory framework governing appeals and pre-deposits. Key evidence and findings: The Court noted the substantial tax demand and petitioner's delay in payment and appeal. Application of law to facts: The Court disposed of the writ petition with directions aimed at balancing revenue protection and petitioner's right to be heard. Treatment of competing arguments: The Court rejected petitioner's plea for unconditional relief but granted conditional opportunity to be heard. Conclusion: The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction is a tool to ensure procedural fairness without overriding statutory mandates.