2021 (9) TMI 1423 - HC - GST

Rejection of refund claim on the ground of being time barred - Rule 108 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT - Hardcopy of the order was supplied to the appellants by the concerned officer on August 3, 2019 and after waiting for some time for the order to be uploaded on the website, the appeal was filed in hard copy, which was dismissed as time barred. As the only mode provided in the Rules is to file the appeal online, the appellants could not avail of that remedy. On account of technical defect on the website and the order impugned having not been uploaded on the website, as a result of which the appellants were unable to file the appeal online, the hard copy of the appeal filed by the appellants shall be considered to have been filed within limitation and it will be heard and decided on merits. The present appeal is disposed of with direction to the appellate authority to decide appeal filed by the appellant against the order of rejection of the refund application on merits after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal dismissed as time-barred due to failure to file online as per Rule 108 of CGST Rules, 2017.

Analysis:
The judgment involves the impugning of an order where the appellants' refund claim appeal was dismissed as time-barred. The appellants' grievance was that their appeal was rejected for being filed after the stipulated time frame, as per Rule 108 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017, which mandates online filing post order upload. However, the appellants were unable to file online as the order had not been uploaded on the website, thus resorting to filing a hard copy after receiving the order in physical form. The State acknowledged a technical website glitch that prevented online filing and accepted the hard copy appeal as filed within the limitation period.

The prayer made was for the appeal to be considered on its merits. The State's counsel admitted the technical issue on the website, leading to the appellants' inability to file online, and agreed that the hard copy appeal should be deemed within the limitation period. Consequently, the judgment directed the appellate authority to hear and decide the appeal against the rejection of the refund application on its merits, ensuring both parties are provided with a fair opportunity to present their case.

In conclusion, the judgment rectified the time-barred dismissal of the appellants' appeal by acknowledging the technical hindrance in online filing due to the order not being uploaded on the website. The State's fair stand led to the disposal of the appeal with directions for a thorough consideration of the appeal on its merits, emphasizing the importance of providing parties with a proper hearing opportunity in such cases.