Case Details: JEM Exporter v. Union of India - [2023] 153 taxmann.com 80 (Bombay)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- G.S. Kulkarni & Jitendra Jain, JJ.
- Bharat Raichandani & Prathamesh Gorgate, Advs. for the Petitioner.
- Jitendra B. Mishra, Dhananjay B. Deshmukh & Ashutosh Mishra for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
In the present petition, the petitioner challenged the decision of Appellate Authority which upheld the order of rejection of revocation of cancellation and order of cancellation of registration. The petitioner contended that the GST Tribunal had not been constituted and the cancellation of the registration was affecting the business of the petitioner.
It was submitted by the department that the appeal was rejected since the petitioner had not provided proof of pre-deposit and didn’t file certified copy of order-in-original.
High Court Held
The Honorable High Court noted that justice can’t be denied for failure to comply with procedure without giving an opportunity to appellant to rectify procedural defects. In the present case, the Commissioner (Appeal) ought to have issued a defect memo to produce proof and submit required documents and would give adequate opportunity to petitioner for rectify.
Therefore, it was held that order rejecting appeal was liable to set aside and appeal was directed to be restored. The Court also directed Commissioner (Appeal) to issue a defect memo to the petitioner pointing out the procedural defect in the appeal and would give adequate opportunity for rectifying the same.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Inspecting Assistant Commissioner v. K.B. Nagarala (1986) 162 ITR 170 (para 11)
- Jagat Dhish Bhargva v. Jawahar Lal Bhargava AIR 1961 SC 932 (para 12)
- Bharat Industries v. State of Maharashtra (1995) 98 STC 417 (para 13)
- United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar (1996) 6 SCC 660 (para 14)
- CIT v. Hope Textiles Ltd. [2006] 287 ITR 321 (MP) (para 14)
- Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh (2006) 1 SCC 75 (para 14)
- Remfry & Sons v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2005] 276 ITR 1 (Del.) (para 14)
- Ashish kumar Kar v. Central Board of Excise and Customs (2023) 152 taxmann.com 642 (Orissa) (para 15) followed.
The post Appeal Can’t be Rejected Without Giving an Opportunity to Appellant to Rectify Procedural Defects | Bombay HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
