In a recent ruling, the Patna High Court restored a dismissed appeal after the GST department forcefully recovered the entire disputed demand during an extended appeal period.
Ravi Kumar Jaiswal, the petitioner was subject to tax demands for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20, with orders passed on March 13, 2020. Due to non-payment and no appeal until August 10, 2022, authorities took coercive steps to recover the full demand.
The petitioner appealed the tax demands for the respective years. However, the appeal was dismissed because the entire demand had been satisfied so there was no requirement for an appeal.
Uncover GSTR 9 and 9C Best Practices: Expert-Led Course
The petitioner filed a writ petitioner before the Patna High Court challenging the dismissal order arguing that the payment was made under coercive measures, not voluntarily. The counsel argued that the appellate body should not have dismissed the appeal based on demand satisfaction.
The respondent’s counsel submitted a supplementary affidavit on July 30, 2024, explaining that the tax demands were initially issued on March 13, 2020. Since the petitioner had not filed an appeal by August 10, 2022, the respondents resorted to coercive measures to recover the entire amount.
The bench comprising Chief Justice Krishnan Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarathy referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in In Re: Cognizance For Extension of Limitation, which extended limitation periods for legal filings due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The court acknowledged this extension applied to the petitioner’s case, granting additional time to file an appeal beyond the usual deadline.
Uncover GSTR 9 and 9C Best Practices: Expert-Led Course
The court emphasized that the petitioner’s right to appeal should not be waived merely due to payment, especially under coercive action. The court further acknowledged that CBIC Circular No. 53/2023 allows appeals if 12.5% of disputed tax is paid, which the petitioner met by satisfying the demand.
Given that the petitioner had met these criteria through the coercive recovery, the court found that the appeal should not have been dismissed because the demand was satisfied. Therefore, the court set aside the impugned order and restored the matter directing to decide it on merits. The writ petitioner disposed of with direction.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
