2024 (8) TMI 66 - HC - GST

Seeking a direction to the first respondent to accept the appeal by treating the date of filing of the appeal as 18.06.2021 - rejection of refund of IGST on ocean freight - HELD THAT - In PKV Agencies, this Court followed the judgment of the Orissa High Court in M/S. ATLAS PVC PIPES LIMITED VERSUS STATE OF ODISHA OTHERS 2022 (7) TMI 130 - ORISSA HIGH COURT . In effect, the Court concluded that the non- production of the hard copy of the impugned order is only a technical defect and that the appeal is required to be processed provided the appeal was filed within time. In the case at hand, the refund rejection order was issued on 19.03.2021 and the appeal was lodged on 18.06.2021. As such, the appeal was filed within time limit prescribed by statute. In those circumstances, the ratio of PKV Agencies is applicable. This writ petition is disposed of by directing the first respondent to process the appeal by not rejecting the same on the ground that the physical copy of the impugned order was filed on 02.02.2024. If the appeal is otherwise in order, the first respondent is directed to number the appeal within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Summary

Issues:
- Direction sought for accepting the appeal with a specific filing date
- Compliance with procedural requirement for filing hard copy of impugned order
- Precedents on processing appeals filed within time limit

Analysis:
1. The petitioner in this case sought a direction for the first respondent to accept the appeal with the filing date as 18.06.2021. The refund rejection order related to a claim for refund of IGST on ocean freight. The petitioner was required to file a hard copy of the impugned order within seven days of presenting the appeal, as per Rule 108(3) of the applicable GST Rules. However, this requirement was not met until 02.02.2024.

2. The petitioner's counsel relied on a judgment in M/s.PKV Agencies v. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST) (Appeals), Vellore, to argue that Rule 108(3) is a procedural requirement and the appeal should be processed if filed within time. It was emphasized that the impugned order was available with the appellate authority, and the issue of refund of IGST on ocean freight had been addressed by various High Courts, including the present one.

3. The Government Advocate for the respondents acknowledged that the appeal was not processed due to the petitioner's failure to submit the physical copy of the impugned order. However, the Court referred to the judgment in M/s.Atlas PVC Pipes Ltd. v. State of Odisha, where it was held that the non-production of the hard copy of the impugned order was a technical defect. Since the appeal was filed within the prescribed time limit, following the precedent, the Court directed the first respondent to process the appeal without rejecting it based on the delay in filing the physical copy.

4. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of by instructing the first respondent to process the appeal if it is otherwise in order, within one month of receiving a copy of the Court's order. No costs were awarded in this matter.