9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 236 - HC - GSTAppeal rejected as being not maintainable - rejection of refund claim - Rule 108 of the Haryana Goods Service Tax Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT - A co-ordinate Bench in GO DADDY INDIA DOMAINS AND HOSTING SERVICES PVT. LTD. VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 2023 (4) TMI 1283 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT came to the conclusion that it is a highly technical ground for dismissing the appeal and set aside the said order and issued directions to hear the appeal on merits after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. A perusal of the said judgment would also go on to show that the wording of the Rule had been taken into consideration since it is provided electronically or otherwise and, therefore, the manual filing as such has also been accepted. Petition disposed off.
Issues involved: Challenge to the order rejecting appeal due to offline filing, interpretation of Rule 108 of Haryana Goods & Service Tax Rules, 2017.
In the present writ petition, the challenge was to the order dated 01.03.2023 whereby the appeal was rejected for being filed offline against the order dated 04.06.2020. The appeal was against the rejection of a refund for a specific period, and reliance was placed on Rule 108 of the Haryana Goods & Service Tax Rules, 2017, which allows appeals to be filed electronically or otherwise as notified by the Commissioner. The Rule in question was amended on 04.08.2023, and it was noted that appeals had been filed prior to this amendment. Reference was made to a previous decision in CWP-9051-2023, where a similar technical ground for dismissal was set aside, and directions were given to hear the appeal on its merits. Additionally, the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Ali Cotton Mill vs. Appellate Joint Commissioner was cited for considering the wording of the Rule allowing for filing "electronically or otherwise." Upon perusal of the relevant judgments and considering the wording of the Rule, the Court found no reason to pass a different order. Consequently, the order dated 01.03.2023 was quashed, and the appeal was restored for the Appellate Authority to decide on its merits. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
|
