Case Title | Prakash Purohit Vs The Commissioner, Central Goods And Service |
Court | Rajasthan High court |
Honorable Judges | Justice Sandeep Mehta Justice Kuldeep Mathur |
Citation | 2022 (10) GSTPanacea 604 HC Rajasthan D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16269/2022 |
Judgement Date | 10-November-2022 |
he petitioner argues that despite the delay in filing the hard-copy of the appeal, the authorities should have considered the e-appeal submission as sufficient compliance, especially given the digital nature of GST procedures. The petitioner asserts that the rejection of the appeal on procedural grounds is harsh and not in the spirit of justice, particularly since the e-appeal was submitted within the permissible time.
The petitioner’s learned counsel emphasizes that the essence of the GST system is to facilitate ease of doing business through digital means. The counsel contends that the insistence on a hard-copy, especially when the e-appeal was timely filed, defeats the purpose of the digital framework intended by GST laws. Additionally, the counsel highlights that the petitioner’s substantial rights are at stake due to this procedural lapse, which should be condoned in the interest of justice.
The counsel further argues that other similar cases have seen a more lenient approach by authorities where procedural delays were excused, pointing out a need for consistency and fairness in administrative decisions. The petitioner seeks the court’s intervention to set aside the order dated 28.09.2022 and to direct the competent authority to reconsider the appeal on its merits rather than on procedural technicalities.
The respondent, representing the tax authorities, argues that the rules and deadlines regarding the submission of appeals are clearly defined under the GST Act. The respondent contends that adherence to these procedural requirements is essential to maintain order and predictability in the tax administration process. The respondent further points out that the petitioner had ample time to comply with the hard-copy submission requirement but failed to do so, and thus, the authorities acted within their jurisdiction to reject the appeal.
Upon hearing both parties and reviewing the available material, the court acknowledges the petitioner’s predicament but also recognizes the importance of procedural compliance in tax administration. The court must balance the petitioner’s plea for leniency with the need to uphold procedural rigor as outlined in the GST Act.
In conclusion, the court deliberates on whether the procedural lapse by the petitioner warrants a setting aside of the rejection order and a remand for a fresh consideration of the appeal on substantive grounds. The court’s decision will hinge on interpreting the procedural flexibility within the GST framework and the broader implications of either condoning or enforcing strict adherence to procedural deadlines.
The case involves a petitioner who is a dealer registered under the GST Act. The petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled by the competent authority on April 11, 2022. Under the GST Act, an appeal against such a cancellation must be filed within three months, extendable by an additional 30 days. The petitioner filed an electronic appeal on September 27, 2022, but failed to submit the required hard copy. Consequently, on September 28, 2022, the appeal was dismissed as time-barred.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri N.S. Rajpurohit, argued that the petitioner has been denied justice due to a technicality regarding the timing of the appeal submission. He cited several precedents from various High Courts to support his case:
1.M/s G.G. Agencies Girijeshwar Rice Mill vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors. (Writ Petition No.15344 of 2022, decided on August 18, 2022
Kumar vs. Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST & Ors.**: 2022 (7) TMI 128 – Uttarakhand High Court (Special Appeal No.123 of 2022) 3. TVL. Suguna Cutpiece Centre vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST), The Assistant Commissioner (Circle), Salem Bazaar: 2022 (2) TMI 933 – Madras High Court 4. M/s Trans India Carco Carriers vs. The Assistant Commissioner (Circle) W.P. Nos.18537 of 2022 and etc. – Madras High Court
These judgments were presented to argue that dismissing the appeal on the grounds of being time-barred is excessively technical and unjust. Shri Rajpurohit emphasized that the cancellation of the GST registration has deprived the petitioner of the ability to conduct business, thus violating his right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
He contended that the petitioner should be given another opportunity to file the appeal correctly and requested the competent authority to be directed to consider the appeal on its merits. The aim is to ensure that the petitioner is not left without a remedy and can continue his business, which is crucial for his livelihood.
In a recent legal proceeding, the court heard arguments from both sides and examined the available evidence. The petitioner, a GST-registered dealer, had their registration canceled by the competent authority on April 11, 2022. Although the law allows for an appeal against such cancellations within three months, extendable by an additional 30 days, the petitioner only filed an e-appeal on September 27, 2022, failing to submit a hard copy. Consequently, their appeal was dismissed as time-barred on September 28, 2022.
The petitioner’s counsel, Shri N.S. Rajpurohit, cited several judgments from different High Courts to support their argument that the petitioner was unfairly left without recourse due to a technicality. They contended that the cancellation of GST registration severely impacted the petitioner’s ability to conduct business, infringing upon their right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
On the other side, Shri Dutt and Shri Vaishnav opposed the petitioner’s arguments but couldn’t refute the legal precedents cited.
Considering the severe consequences of the cancellation on the petitioner’s livelihood, the court overturned the dismissal order dated September 28, 2022. They granted the petitioner ten days to file an appeal against the cancellation of their GST registration. The court directed that upon filing such an appeal, it should be thoroughly considered and decided in accordance with the law, disregarding the limitation on the petitioner’s filing timeline. This decision was made in recognition of the petitioner’s fundamental right to livelihood as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Download PDF:
For Reference Visit:
Read Another Case Law:
GST Case Law: