The High Court quashed the impugned order dismissing the Petitioner’s appeal due to alleged non-compliance with pre-deposit requirements and lack of proof of authorized signatory. The Court found evidence proving compliance with the pre-deposit requirement and held that Respondent No. 2 failed to verify the documents on the GST portal regarding the authorized signatory. The matter was remanded for de novo consideration with directions for proper hearing.

1. Case Background (Paras 1-3)

• Petition Filed: The Petitioner challenged an Order-in-Appeal dated 20.06.2024 (issued on 03.07.2024).
• Dismissal Grounds:
  1. Non-payment of mandatory pre-deposit (Section 107(6), CGST Act, 2017).
  2. Failure to submit proof of authorization (Board Resolution under Companies Act, 1956).

2. Compliance with Pre-Deposit Requirement (Paras 4-6)

• Petitioner’s Claim: Pre-deposit of ₹4,42,55,474/- (10% of the disputed tax amount) was made.
• Evidence:
  • Amount reflected in Form APL-01 (Memorandum of Appeal).
  • Screenshots from GSTN portal showing payments from the Electronic Credit Ledger and Cash Ledger.
  • Provisional acknowledgment generated by Respondent's system confirming the pre-deposit.
• Court’s Observation: The Petitioner complied with Section 107(6) requirements. Respondent No. 2 erred in not verifying the records or seeking clarification from the Petitioner.

3. Failure to Verify Authorized Signatory (Paras 7-9)

• Allegation: Petitioner failed to provide a valid Board Resolution authorizing the signatory.
• Court’s Findings:
  • The GSTN portal showed the authorized signatory as Mr. Deepak Kokate.
  • Registration on the GSTN portal requires submitting relevant authorizing documents.
  • Respondent No. 2 failed to check the portal or seek clarification during the hearing.

4. Similar Judgments Cited (Paras 7-11)

• Bytedance (India) Technology Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India: High Court quashed a similar order for incorrect conclusions on pre-deposit compliance.
• Tata Consumer Products Ltd. v. Union of India: Dismissal due to lack of proof of authorization was set aside, directing Respondents to verify records.
• Other Cases: Century Textiles, Heena Metals, and Zydus Wellness emphasized similar procedural obligations on authorities.

5. Decision (Paras 12-16)

• Order Quashed: The impugned order was set aside.
• Remand for De Novo Consideration:
  • Respondent No. 2 directed to give personal hearing with 5 working days’ prior notice.
  • A reasoned order to be passed addressing all submissions.
  • Deadline for disposal: 31st December 2024.
• Rights and Contentions Open: The Court clarified it made no observations on merits.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017:
   • Section 107(6): Mandatory pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed tax for appeals.
2. Companies Act, 1956:
   • Requirement for Board Resolutions authorizing signatories.

Ratio Decidendi:

The Appellate Authority’s failure to:

1. Verify pre-deposit evidence despite it being available on record.
2. Confirm the authorized signatory’s details on the GSTN portal.
   violated procedural fairness. Authorities must provide opportunities to clarify or rectify any discrepancies before dismissing appeals.

Subjects:

GST Appeals, Pre-Deposit Compliance, Procedural Fairness
GST, Pre-Deposit, Authorized Signatory, CGST Act, Appellate Authority, Procedural Fairness