TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 620
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., by itself, give the appellant a right to a hearing on merits. The right of appeal is created by statute and must be exercised subject to the conditions prescribed by law. In Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar, (1974) 2 SCC 393, Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the distinction between a suit and an appeal. A civil suit may ordinarily be brought unless barred by law, but an appeal requires clear statutory authority. In Anant Mills Company Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, (1975) 2 SCC 175, Hon'ble Supreme Court recognised that the legislature may impose conditions on the exercise of the right of appeal, provided they are not so onerous that the right becomes practically illusory. 2. The question at the admission stage 2.1 Since this is a departmental appeal. The first question is therefore whether the Department has complied with the statutory and administrative conditions governing such an appeal. The existence of a grievance against the impugned order does not, by itself, answer that question. 2.2 Section 120 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, bears the heading "Appeal not to be filed in certain cases". Section 120(1) provides: 2.3 "(1) The Commissioner may, on the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Compensation Cess components, is considered. 4.8 The limit applies to the disputed amount for which the appeal or application is proposed. 4.9 Where a composite order disposes of more than one appeal or demand notice, the relevant amounts are taken together. The limit is not applied separately to each appeal or demand notice. 4.10 Thus, where the demand includes tax, interest and penalty, the relevant amount is the disputed tax and cess. Interest and penalty are not added to that amount for this purpose. If the amount so calculated is below Rs. 20,00,000, the monetary restriction applies unless a recognised exception is established. On examining the record, we find that the disputed demand is Rs 16,23,766 imposed under Section 122, comprising Rs. 8,11,883 each under CGST and SGST, and the fine of Rs. 2,00,000 imposed under Section 130 of the SGST Act, totalling Rs. 18,23,766. However as per above discussion here only tax demand of Rs. 16,23,766 is to be considered as disputed demand which is below Rs. 20,00,000. Hence we find that here monetary-limit restriction is attracted. 5. Exceptions to the monetary limit 5.1 An amount below the monetary limit does not end the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax Act, 2017 for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the said order and may, by order, direct any officer subordinate to him to apply to the Appellate Tribunal within six months from the date on which the said order has been passed or the date, as may be notified by the Government, on the recommendations of the Council, for the purpose of filing application before the Appellate Tribunal under this Act, whichever is later, for determination of such points arising out of the said order as may be specified by the Commissioner in his order." 7.3 The provision requires the Commissioner to examine the record, form an opinion on the legality or propriety of the order, and identify the points to be placed before the Tribunal. The record must enable the Tribunal to examine the basis of that decision. A bare assertion that the Commissioner has granted permission does not meet this requirement. 7.4 Section 112(4) further provides: 7.5 "(4) Where in pursuance of an order under sub-section (3) the authorised officer makes an application to the Appellate Tribunal, such application shall be dealt with by the Appellate Tribunal as if it were an appeal made....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....1 The Revenue may argue that Section 112 gives it a statutory right of appeal and that an appeal directed by the Commissioner must be admitted. We cannot accept that argument as an absolute proposition. Section 112 must be read with the provisions governing departmental litigation, including Section 120. As explained in Ganga Bai and Anant Mills, the right of appeal is statutory and may be subject to conditions. The existence of appellate jurisdiction does not require the Tribunal to admit every departmental appeal without examining compliance with those conditions. 11. Whether an exception is established in this case 11.1 We have examined the record and FORM GST APL-07. The appellant states that this appeal has been filed under Section 112(3) of the UPGST Act. However, the Revenue has neither specifically pleaded nor established any recognised exception to the monetary limit. There is no material showing that a provision of the relevant GST Acts has been held unconstitutional; that a rule has been held contrary to its parent Act; or that a notification, circular or instruction has been held invalid. Nor has the Revenue shown that this case involves a recurring question of l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 13.1 The Revenue has invited us to consider the merits of the dispute. We decline to do so because maintainability must be decided first. The Tribunal cannot decide the merits and only afterwards examine whether the appeal met the conditions for admission. An arguable case on merits does not, by itself, overcome the binding monetary-limit policy. 14. Public interest and responsible litigation 14.1 Government litigation uses judicial time, departmental resources and public money. It also takes the time of officers and taxpayers and uses the Tribunal's limited capacity. The monetary-limit policy is intended to ensure that the State litigates where the amount involved, the legal significance, the recurring nature of the issue, the public interest or a recognised exception justifies doing so. The statutory scheme also protects the Revenue from being treated as having accepted a disputed legal position merely because an appeal is not filed under the monetary-limit policy. Section 120(2) and (3) of the UPGST Act provide: 14.2 "(2) Where, in pursuance of the orders or instructions or directions issued under sub-section (1), the officer of the State tax has not filed an appeal ....