9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (11) TMI 1038 - HC - GSTDismissal of appeal of the petitioner - dismissal mainly, on the ground that against the assessment order, the petitioner preferred online appeal without filing certified copy of assessment order in physical form, whereas, downloaded copy of assessment order was filed along with the appeal memo - HELD THAT - The view taken by all the High Courts agreed upon, wherein it was held that amendment in Rule 108 with effect from 26.12.2022 is procedural in nature and being procedural, will have retrospective effect - reliance can be placed in Indian Potash Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner 2024 (8) TMI 66 - MADRAS HIGH COURT and Oaknorth (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 2023 (9) TMI 781 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT . The view of the High Courts agreed upon that rejection of appeal on hyper technical ground cannot be countenanced, more so, when appeal was admittedly filed within time along with the downloaded copy from the portal. Thus, the impugned appellate order dated 19.07.2024 is set aside. The appeal is restored in the file of learned appellate authority. The appellate authority shall decide the appeal, in accordance with law, on merits - petition disposed off.
Issues:
Challenge to appellate order based on filing of physical certified copy of assessment order and limitation period. Analysis: The petition challenged an appellate order dismissing the appeal due to the petitioner not filing a physical certified copy of the assessment order within the specified time frame. The appellate authority relied on Rule 108(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, to reject the appeal as time-barred. The petitioner argued that the appeal was filed within time along with a downloaded copy of the assessment order. The petitioner cited three judgments to support their case, emphasizing that the point in question was well-established. The High Court noted that Rule 108 was amended with retrospective effect from 26.12.2022, making the rejection of the appeal on technical grounds unjustifiable. The Court agreed with previous judgments that emphasized the procedural nature of the amendment and the need to consider appeals filed within time, even if the physical copy was delayed. The High Court referred to judgments from other High Courts that criticized the hyper-technical approach of rejecting appeals solely based on the absence of a physical certified copy. The Court concurred with the view that such rejections could not withstand judicial scrutiny. Consequently, the Court held that the impugned appellate order was legally flawed. The Court set aside the order and restored the appeal to the appellate authority for a decision on the merits, emphasizing the need for a fair consideration of the appeal based on its legal merits rather than technicalities. In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the writ petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and did not award any costs. The Court directed any pending interlocutory applications to be closed. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering appeals on their legal substance rather than technical deficiencies, especially in cases where the appeal was filed within the statutory limitation period and accompanied by essential documents, even if not in physical form.
|
