The appeal authority appears to have only considered and offered reasons to accept the alternate plea made by the petitioner but it has not made any application of mind to the main plea that there was no infraction of law and the penalty provisions were not attracted, the order passed by the appeal authority cannot be sustained to that extent and is hereby set aside.
Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017— Appeal -— The petitioner challenged the order dated 6.1.2021 vide which the appellate authority has partly allowed the petitioner’s appeal and reduced the penalty treating the petitioner to be the owner of the goods. The respondent counsel submitted that the appeal authority has heard and decided the appeal in entirety after taking note of the entire submissions advanced by the petitioner. The court observed that the appeal authority must consider and decide, after recording reasons, each ground of appeal raised and pressed before it. The appeal authority has not made any observations to the effect that the assessee had limited his appeal to the alternate ground but the appeal authority has copiously referred to the entire submissions advanced by the petitioner including submissions advanced on the merits of the matter. Yet, it has not dealt with or decided the same. Such a course adopted by the appeal authority is not productive or useful either for the purposes of adjudication made by it or for the purposes of testing the correctness of the adjudication made by such appeal authority, by the higher forum. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the appeal authority to formulate the exact points of decision that became necessary to be resolved in view of the submissions advanced before it and to express them in clear language. In the present case the appeal authority appears to have only considered and offered reasons to accept the alternate plea made by the petitioner but it has not made any application of mind to the main plea.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the order dated 06.01.2021 and remitted the matter to the appeal authority to pass fresh order, within a period of three months.
The appeal authority appears to have only considered and offered reasons to accept the alternate plea made by the petitioner but it has not made any application of mind to the main plea that there was no infraction of law and the penalty provisions were not attracted, the order passed by the appeal authority cannot be sustained to that extent and is hereby set aside.
Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017— Appeal -— The petitioner challenged the order dated 6.1.2021 vide which the appellate authority has partly allowed the petitioner’s appeal and reduced the penalty treating the petitioner to be the owner of the goods. The respondent counsel submitted that the appeal authority has heard and decided the appeal in entirety after taking note of the entire submissions advanced by the petitioner. The court observed that the appeal authority must consider and decide, after recording reasons, each ground of appeal raised and pressed before it. The appeal authority has not made any observations to the effect that the assessee had limited his appeal to the alternate ground but the appeal authority has copiously referred to the entire submissions advanced by the petitioner including submissions advanced on the merits of the matter. Yet, it has not dealt with or decided the same. Such a course adopted by the appeal authority is not productive or useful either for the purposes of adjudication made by it or for the purposes of testing the correctness of the adjudication made by such appeal authority, by the higher forum. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the appeal authority to formulate the exact points of decision that became necessary to be resolved in view of the submissions advanced before it and to express them in clear language. In the present case the appeal authority appears to have only considered and offered reasons to accept the alternate plea made by the petitioner but it has not made any application of mind to the main plea.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the order dated 06.01.2021 and remitted the matter to the appeal authority to pass fresh order, within a period of three months.