Appeal cannot be rejected on the procedural lapse of non-submission of order

[CA Bimal Jain]

The Hon’ble Madras High Court in INDIAN POTASH LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, R. SRINIVASAN VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ST) , ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CIRCLE) , CHENNAI - 2024 (6) TMI 364 - MADRAS HIGH COURT directed the adjudicating authority to entertain the appeal which was earlier rejected on non-submission of order copy by the assessee before the appellate authority.

Facts:

M/s. Indian Potash Ltd. (“the Petitioner”) filed IGST refund application pertaining to ocean freight, which was rejected by the adjudicating authority.

Aggrieved by the order the Petitioner filed an appeal before the first appellate authority, however, the Petitioner failed to submit the copy of order of the adjudicating authority which the assessee is required submit within seven days of presentation of the appeal before the adjudication authority as per Rule 108(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (“the CGST Rules”).

The appellate authority rejected the appeal on the ground that the Petitioner had not complied with Rule 108(3) of the CGST Rules.

Aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority the Petitioner filed the writ petition, contending that Rule 108 of the CGST Rules, is a purely procedural requirement, therefore the appeal should not be dismissed provided it is filed on time, which in the present case, is filed within the prescribed time limit.

Issue:

Whether Revenue department can reject the refund application on mere procedural lapse?

Held:

Hon’ble Madras High Court in INDIAN POTASH LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, R. SRINIVASAN VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ST) , ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CIRCLE) , CHENNAI - 2024 (6) TMI 364 - MADRAS HIGH COURT held that:

• Relied upon the judgement of the Orissa High Court in M/S. ATLAS PVC PIPES LIMITED VERSUS STATE OF ODISHA & OTHERS - 2022 (7) TMI 130 - ORISSA HIGH COURT , wherein the court has held 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.
• Noted that, in the present case the appeal was filed within time limit prescribed by statute. Further, directed the adjudicating authority to entertain the appeal within 1 month.
• Disposed the writ petition.

(Author can be reached at [email protected])