The Gauhati High Court in the case of TNS EXPRESS PVT LTD AND SUBODH KUMAR SINGH VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXES GUWAHATI, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX GUWAHATI, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXES GUWAHATI, vide WP(C)/3392/2024, WP(C)/3417/2024 dated 20.09.2024, has held that analysed the provisions of Sections 107 and 129 of the CGST Act, noting that while Section 129(5) concludes proceedings after payment of the demanded amount, it does not restrict the right to appeal an order passed under Section 129(3). Further, right to appeal cannot be taken away merely because the petitioners paid the entire demanded amount.
Facts of the case: In this case, petitioners had their transport vehicles detained for discrepancies in goods transport, leading to proceedings under Section 129(3) of the Assam GST Act, 2017, and similar provisions under the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioners made payments of the tax, penalty, and cess as demanded, which were duly acknowledged by the authorities. However, they faced technical issues when attempting to file their appeals through the GST portal, as alerts incorrectly indicated that full payment had not been made.
The inability to file appeals due to a technical glitch on the GST portal deprived the petitioners of their statutory right to appeal. Despite notifying the respondent authorities of the glitch, no action was taken to resolve the issue.
The Respondent department argued that once the full payment is made under Section 129(5) of the Assam GST Act, all proceedings concerning the notice are concluded, suggesting no further steps were necessary.
Held that: The Court analyzed the provisions of Sections 107 and 129 of the CGST Act, noting that while Section 129(5) concludes proceedings after payment of the demanded amount, it does not restrict the right to appeal an order passed under Section 129(3). The court emphasized that the right to appeal cannot be taken away merely because the petitioners paid the entire demanded amount.
The petitioners are allowed to file their appeals within 10 days from the date of the judgment. Directed the respondent authorities to ensure the necessary infrastructure is available to accept the appeals through the portal. If the portal remains non-functional, the petitioners may file the appeals manually within an additional seven days. The respondents are barred from raising any objection on the grounds of limitation if the appeals are filed within the stipulated period.
To read the complete judgment 2024 Taxo.online 2251
