The Patna High Court has clarified how GST appellate authorities should treat technical defects in appeal filings—especially where the hard copy of the appeal is not filed and the “amount under dispute” column in Form GST APL-01 is marked “Not Applicable.” In this 2024 oral judgment, the Court set aside the dismissal of a taxpayer’s first appeal and restored it for a decision on merits, emphasizing that (i) filing of hard copies had already been waived by government notification, and (ii) once the full penalty under Section 129 is paid, the purpose of the pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6) stands satisfied.
The case arose from a detention of goods and imposition of penalty under Section 129 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (BGST). The appellant (petitioner before the High Court) secured release of the goods after paying the entire penalty but challenged the penalty order in appeal. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal on two technical grounds: first, that a physical (hard copy) filing had not been submitted; and second, that the column “amount under dispute” in Form GST APL-01 showed “Not Applicable.”
The High Court held that both reasons could not sustain the dismissal. On the first ground, the Court noted that the government had waived the requirement of filing hard copies by notification dated 26.12.2022; therefore, non-submission of a paper set was not a valid basis to reject an otherwise properly instituted appeal. On the second ground, the Court observed that the “amount under dispute” box helps determine the pre-deposit payable under Section 107(6). However, the proviso to Section 107(6) mandates a 25% deposit of the penalty when the challenge is to an order under Section 129(3). In the present case, the appellant had already paid the entire penalty at the detention stage—well beyond the 25% threshold—rendering the omission a mere procedural irregularity that should not defeat the appeal.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the appellate dismissal on these technical grounds and restored the appeal to the first Appellate Authority for disposal on merits after granting the appellant an opportunity of hearing.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment (For general public or government)
This decision is significant for both taxpayers and GST authorities in Bihar:
- It prioritizes substantive justice over form. If an appeal otherwise qualifies for hearing, minor procedural lapses—like not uploading a paper set or writing “Not Applicable” against “amount under dispute”—should not result in outright dismissal, particularly when the pre-deposit requirement stands effectively met by prior payment.
- For taxpayers, the ruling offers reassurance that genuine disputes will not be shut out for technical reasons—especially in cases under Section 129 where full penalties are often paid at the time of release of goods. Appellants who have already borne the entire penalty should not be compelled to face rejection because of a clerical or formatting oversight in Form GST APL-01.
- For the administration, it reinforces adherence to existing facilitation measures. Once a government notification removes the hard-copy filing requirement, appellate bodies must align their procedure accordingly. This improves efficiency, reduces paper dependency, and supports transparent e-governance.
- On a broader level, the case underscores that pre-deposit is a safeguard against frivolous appeals—not a technical trap. When the pre-deposit’s underlying purpose is satisfied (e.g., full penalty already paid), an appeal should normally proceed to a decision on merits.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with reasoning
- Whether an appeal can be dismissed for not filing a hard copy after a government notification has waived such requirement.
Decision: No. The hard copy requirement having been waived by notification dated 26.12.2022, dismissal on that ground was unsustainable. The Court emphasized that appellate authorities must follow the prevailing procedural regime. - Whether mentioning “Not Applicable” in the “amount under dispute” field of Form GST APL-01 justified dismissal of the appeal.
Decision: No. The field is intended to compute pre-deposit under Section 107(6) and its proviso for orders under Section 129(3). Because the appellant had already paid the entire penalty, the omission was a procedural defect and did not affect the maintainability of the appeal. The Court found that the appeal should be entertained. - Appropriate relief.
Decision: The High Court set aside the appellate rejection order and restored the appeal to the first Appellate Authority for adjudication on merits after hearing the appellant.
Case Title
Varun Bevarages Limited v. State of Bihar & Others
Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11383 of 2024
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble the Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
For the petitioner: Mr. Tabish Sharfuddin, Advocate
For the respondents: Mr. Vikash Kumar, Standing Counsel (11)
Link to Judgment
MTUjMTEzODMjMjAyNCMxI04=-M40Eq8tgtzY=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
