9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (10) TMI 1106 - HC - GSTDismissal of appeal filed beyond time - condonable under Section 107(4) of the KGST/CGST Act, 2017 or not - HELD THAT - The date of filing of the appeal physically as extracted above, cannot be taken to be the date of actual filing of the appeal. The appeal ought to have been filed within 3 months from the date of receipt of the order and taking note of the date on which the appeal was filed online which is to be taken to be the date of filing of the appeal, the appeal could be construed to have been filed in time. If that were to be so, the present appeals having been filed in time, the orders of the Appellate Authority at Annexure-A in all the writ petitions are set aside and the matter is remitted to the appellate authority for fresh adjudication on the merits of the matter. Petition disposed off by way of remand.
Issues:
Validity of impugned orders dismissing appeals filed beyond time under Section 107(11) of KGST/CGST Act, 2017. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the dismissal of appeals beyond the condonable time under Section 107(4) of the Act. The petitioner argued that the starting point of limitation should be the date of acknowledgment issued through online filing, not the date of physical filing. The court referred to a previous case where the appeal was filed online within the time limit but physically filed later. The court highlighted Rule 108(3) of CGST Rules, which determined the date of appeal filing based on the submission of the certified copy of the order. The rule was later substituted to clarify that the date of appeal would be the date of acknowledgment issuance for online appeals. The court held that the substitution aimed to provide clarity and should have a retrospective effect. Therefore, the date of acknowledgment should be considered as the filing date, not the date of physical filing. The court noted the minutes of the 48th GST Council meeting, which recommended amendments to clarify the submission requirements for appeals. The court emphasized that the substitution of Rule 108(3) was for clarity and should apply retrospectively. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration by the Appellate Authority. The court directed the parties to appear before the Appellate Authority on a specified date. Regarding the limitation issue, the court compared the dates of the rejection order, electronic filing of appeals, and physical filing of appeals in various cases. The court reiterated that the date of filing should be based on the online filing date, not the physical filing date. As the appeals were filed within the time limit based on the online filing date, the orders of the Appellate Authority were set aside, and the matters were remitted for fresh adjudication. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on a specified date for further proceedings. In conclusion, the court clarified the starting point of limitation for appeals, emphasizing the importance of the date of acknowledgment for online filings. The judgment highlighted the retrospective application of the amended rule for clarity and directed the parties to appear before the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration of the appeals.
|
