2024 (5) TMI 917 - HC - GST

Rejection of appeal filed by the petitioner - time limitation - appeal rejected on the ground that the same were time barred, as the self-certified copy of the decision or order was not made available within time as per proviso to Rule 108 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - appeal has been filed electronically within the time frame prescribed - HELD THAT - Various High Courts have held that when an assessee files a memo of appeal in the GST Portal, non submission of certified copy would be treated as mere technical defect and the appeal should not be dismissed on the sole ground of non submission of certified copy within time. The Orissa High Court in the case of M/S. ATLAS PVC PIPES LIMITED VERSUS STATE OF ODISHA OTHERS 2022 (7) TMI 130 - ORISSA HIGH COURT held ' Since the petitioner has enclosed the copy of impugned order as made available to it in the GST portal while filing Memo of Appeal, non-submission of certified copy, as has rightly been conceded by the Additional Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of CT GST Organisation, is to be treated as mere technical defect.' Furthermore, the High Court of Madras in the case of M/S. PKV AGENCIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER P. VIGNESH VERSUS THE APPELLATE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (GST) (APPEALS) , VELLORE, THE STATE TAX OFFICER (CIC) , VELLORE. 2023 (2) TMI 932 - MADRAS HIGH COURT where it was highlighted that the requirement to furnish a certified copy within seven days of filing an appeal is procedural and can be condoned. The court stressed that failure to submit the certified copy within the stipulated time frame should not automatically result in the dismissal of the appeal. Keeping in mind the judgments passed by these High Courts and upon examination of Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 108 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017, mere non filing of the certified copy of the decision within a period of seven days, when the appeal has been filed electronically within the time frame prescribed, that is, three months, the authority should not dismiss the appeal on the ground that the certified copy of the decision was not filed within time. The impugned order is set aside - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment deals with a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the rejection of an appeal by the respondent based on the timeliness of filing a self-certified copy of the decision as per Rule 108 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

Rule 108 Interpretation:
The petitioner argued that Rule 108 of the Rules does not mandate the submission of a self-certified copy of the decision when the appeal is filed electronically and uploaded on the common portal in FORM GST APL-01. The rule specifies the procedure for filing appeals to the Appellate Authority under section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Precedent from Orissa High Court:
Citing a case from the Orissa High Court, it was noted that non-submission of a certified copy should not lead to the dismissal of an appeal if the copy of the impugned order was available on the GST portal at the time of filing the appeal. The court emphasized that such non-compliance should be considered a technical defect rather than a substantive issue.

Precedent from Madras High Court:
Referring to a decision from the Madras High Court, it was highlighted that the requirement to furnish a certified copy within seven days of filing an appeal is procedural and can be condoned. The court stressed that failure to submit the certified copy within the stipulated time frame should not automatically result in the dismissal of the appeal.

Judicial Interpretation and Decision:
After considering the judgments of the Orissa and Madras High Courts along with the relevant provisions of the CGST Act and Rules, the court concluded that the appeal should not be dismissed solely for the delay in filing the certified copy within seven days. The court quashed the impugned order and directed the appellate authority to rehear the appeals and issue a reasoned decision on the merits within three months.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was allowed, setting aside the earlier order and providing directions for a fresh hearing of the appeals in accordance with the interpretation of Rule 108 and relevant judicial precedents.