Page 62 - GSTL_21st May 2020_Vol 36_Part 3

308 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
4. Reverting to the appeal filed by the respondent against the assess-
ment order dated 21-6-2017, the same was dismissed on 25-10-2018 being barred
by limitation and also because no sufficient cause was made out. The respondent
was then advised to file writ petition before the High Court being Writ Petition
No. 39418/2018, solely for quashing and setting aside of assessment order dated
21-6-2017 for tax period - April, 2013 to March, 2014 (CST) being contrary to law,
without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice to the extent
of levy on the Branch Transfer turnovers and to direct the Assistant Commis-
sioner (CT) to re-do the assessment and reckon the correct Branch Transfer turn-
over and grant exemption on the basis of Form “F”. The respondent did not chal-
lenge the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, rejecting the
statutory appeal preferred by the respondent against the assessment order dated
21-6-2017, for reasons best known to the respondent. The Division Bench of the
High Court, on 8-11-2018, noted that the respondent had already paid 12.5% of
the disputed tax, for the purpose of filing an appeal. It also noted the stand taken
by the respondent that the employee who was in charge of the tax matters of the
respondent, had defaulted and was subsequently suspended in contemplation of
disciplinary proceedings, as a result of which statutory appeal could not be filed
within the prescribed time. The Division Bench of the High Court directed the
respondent to pay an additional amount equivalent to 12.5% of the disputed tax
within one week and posted the matter for 19-11-2018. This was an ex parte order.
The respondent, in terms of the stated order, deposited an additional amount
equivalent to 12.5% of the disputed tax amount. The writ petition was then taken
up for hearing on 19-11-2018, when after hearing the Counsel for the parties, the
writ petition came to be allowed and the order passed by the Assistant Commis-
sioner, dated 21-6-2017 has been quashed and set aside and the respondent rele-
gated before the Assistant Commissioner for reconsideration of the matter afresh
after giving personal hearing to the respondent to explain the discrepancies. This
order has also noted that the respondent had paid Rs. 9,59,190/- (Rupees nine
lakhs fifty-nine thousand one hundred ninety only) equivalent to the 12.5% of
the taxes in the year 2013-14 (CST) on 13-11-2018.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have filed the present appeal. It is
urged that the respondent having failed to avail of statutory remedy of appeal
within the prescribed time and also because the delay in filing appeal had not
been satisfactorily explained, the High Court ought not to have entertained the
writ petition at the instance of such person and more so, because the respondent
had allowed the order passed by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal on
the ground of delay to become final. In substance, the argument is that the High
Court exceeded its jurisdiction and committed manifest error in setting aside the
assessment order dated 21-6-2017 passed by the Assistant Commissioner.
6. The respondent, on the other hand, would urge that the High Court
has had ample power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant relief
to the respondent considering the peculiar facts of the present case being an ex-
ceptional situation which if not remedied, would result in failure of justice.
7. We have heard Mr. G.N. Reddy, Learned Counsel for the appellants
and Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran, Learned Counsel for the respondent.
8. From the indisputable facts, it is evident that the assessment order
dated 21-6-2017 was challenged by the respondent by way of statutory appeal
GST LAW TIMES  21st May 2020  62