9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 869 - HC - GSTTime Limitation - Rejection of appeal filed by the petitioner - appeal was filed with a delay beyond the condonable period - Physical copies being submitted on 24.04.2023, beyond the condonable period while electronic filing was within the time limit - HELD THAT - On perusal of the copy of the screen shot filed along with the material papers, there are some force in the submission of learned counsel. Since admittedly the copy of the assessment order dated 20.07.2022 was already placed on the department website, the petitioner gave the reference of the said order while filing the appeal electronically. Therefore, there are force in the submission that the requirement was substantially met. Therefore, the 1st respondent ought to have taken the date of filing of the appeal as 26.09.2022 for all practical purposes. However, the 1st respondent took the date of filing as 24.04.2023, as on the date the appeal was filed along with the documents physically. This approach of the 1st respondent cannot be accepted. Electronical filing of the appeal is a facilitation given to the assessees. That being so, the copy of the impugned order which was already available on the web can be mentioned for easy reference. The appeal filed by the petitioner in electronic mode is held as well within time and the matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent to register the appeal and decide the same in accordance with the governing law and rules expeditiously - Petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Challenge to order in Appeal No. 06/2023(G) GST for rejecting appeal due to delay beyond condonable period. Analysis: The writ petition challenged the order in Appeal No. 06/2023(G) GST, dated 30.06.2023, where the Additional Commissioner of Central Tax (GST-Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner against the assessment order O.C. No. 120/2022-2023, dated 20.07.2022, on the basis of being filed beyond the condonable period. The appeal was filed online on 26.09.2022, but physical copies were received by the 1st respondent on 24.04.2023, resulting in a delay of about six months and five days, which exceeded the condonable period under Section 107 of the CGST Act, leading to the rejection of the appeal. The petitioner contended that the appeal was filed online on 26.09.2022, mentioning the particulars of the assessment order dated 20.07.2022, which was already uploaded on the department's website. The petitioner submitted a screenshot showing the date of the assessment order and Order No. OIO No. 01/2022-23-GST, asserting compliance with the filing requirements. Despite filing physical copies on 24.04.2023, the petitioner argued that the appeal was filed within time, as per Rule 108, which allows electronic filing. The 1st respondent's rejection based on the physical filing date was deemed unjust by the petitioner. The respondents argued that although the appeal was filed online on 26.09.2022, the petitioner failed to produce an online certified copy, only mentioning the assessment order date. Physical copies were submitted on 24.04.2023, beyond the condonable period, leading to the rightful rejection of the appeal by the 1st respondent. Both parties' contentions were heard by the court. The court deliberated on whether the rejection order was legally sustainable. It was acknowledged that the assessment order was passed on 20.07.2022 and uploaded on the official website on the same day. The petitioner electronically filed the appeal on 26.09.2022, within the 90-day period stipulated under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act. The bone of contention was the uploading of the certified copy, with the petitioner arguing substantial compliance by referencing the available assessment order details. The court found merit in the petitioner's submission, emphasizing that electronic filing is a convenience for taxpayers, and referencing the available online order should be considered sufficient. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, affirming that the appeal filed electronically was within the prescribed time. The matter was remitted back to the 1st respondent for registration and expedited decision in accordance with the law and rules. No costs were awarded, and any pending interlocutory applications were closed as a result of the judgment.
|
