9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 1092 - HC - GSTRetrospective application of amendment to Rule 108 of the GST Rules 2017 which altered the requirements for submitting a certified copy of the order appealed against - failure to submit a certified copy of the order within the specified period as per the unamended Rule 108 - differences in various returns - HELD THAT - It is admitted that the appeal against the order dated 16.08.2022 passed by the Proper Officer was preferred on 15.11.2022. It is also not in dispute that along with the appeal copy of the order appealed against was also filed. The said fact has specifically been mentioned in paragraph no. 22 of the writ petition which has not been denied by the State in paragraph no. 11 of the counter affidavit. During the pendency of the appeal subsequent amendment to rule 108 came on 16.12.2022. As per the unamended rule 108 (3) of the Rules the time of filing certified copy of the order appealed against was within 7 days of submission of appeal; whereas as per the amended rule 108(3) of the Rules where the decision and order against is not uploaded on the common portal then the party shall submit certified copy of the said decision within 7 days - Bare conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions clearly shows that in the event certified copy of the order appealed against is not uploaded along with the appeal through e-mode then within 7 days of filing of the appeal a self-certified copy of the order was supposed to be filed within 7 days. The issue in hand has already been decided by the Delhi High Court in Chegg India Private Limited 2024 (12) TMI 1354 - DELHI HIGH COURT wherein the Court has held that the condition for physically filing the certified copy is not mandatory but procedural in nature. If an appeal is preferred along with all documents and the copy of the appeal the filing of certified copy is not required. Similarly in the case in hand it is not in dispute that the appeal which was preferred on 15.11.2022 was without order appealed against. Once this fact is not in dispute the issue in hand is covered by the judgement of the Delhi High Court in Chegg India Private Limited. Conclusion - i) The condition for physically filing the certified copy is not mandatory but procedural in nature. ii) The amendment to Rule 108 is procedural and applies retrospectively allowing appeals filed electronically within the limitation period to be considered valid despite delays in submitting a certified copy. The matter is remanded back to the appellate authority i.e. the Additional Commissioner Grade - 2 (Appeal) State Tax Noida for considering the appeal on merit - petition allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The primary legal issues considered in this judgment are:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant legal framework and precedents: The legal framework revolves around Rule 108 of the GST Rules, 2017, both pre-amendment and post-amendment. The unamended rule required the submission of a certified copy of the decision or order appealed against within seven days of filing the appeal. The amended rule, effective from 26th December 2022, allows for the submission of a self-certified copy if the decision is not uploaded on the common portal, also within seven days. Precedents considered include the Delhi High Court's decision in Chegg India Private Limited Vs. Union of India & Others, which held that the requirement to submit a certified copy is procedural and not mandatory, and the Orissa High Court's decision in M/s Atlas PVC Pipes Ltd., which emphasized the procedural nature of the requirement. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court interpreted the amendment to Rule 108 as clarificatory and procedural, suggesting that it should apply retrospectively. It reasoned that the procedural requirement for submitting a certified copy should not impede the appeal's consideration on merits, especially when the appeal was filed within the prescribed period electronically. Key evidence and findings: The petitioner filed an appeal electronically on 15.11.2022, within the statutory period, but without the certified copy of the order. The amendment to Rule 108 came into effect during the pendency of the appeal. The Court found that the appeal was filed with all requisite documents electronically, and the requirement to submit a certified copy was procedural. Application of law to facts: The Court applied the amended Rule 108 retrospectively, considering the procedural nature of the requirement to submit a certified copy. It held that the appeal should not have been dismissed for non-compliance with this requirement, as the online filing was completed within the limitation period. Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent argued that the petitioner failed to comply with the requirement to submit a certified copy within the stipulated period, justifying the dismissal of the appeal. The Court, however, favored the petitioner's argument that the amendment was procedural and should apply retrospectively, allowing for the condonation of delay in submitting the certified copy. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the requirement for submitting a certified copy of the order is procedural and not mandatory. The appeal should be considered on its merits, and the procedural lapse should not result in dismissal. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held that:
The Court remanded the matter back to the appellate authority for consideration on the merits, emphasizing the importance of not sacrificing the merits of the appeal for procedural defaults.
|
