9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 869X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el. Since admittedly the copy of the assessment order dated 20.07.2022 was already placed on the department website, the petitioner gave the reference of the said order while filing the appeal electronically. Therefore, there are force in the submission that the requirement was substantially met. Therefore, the 1st respondent ought to have taken the date of filing of the appeal as 26.09.2022 for all practical purposes. However, the 1st respondent took the date of filing as 24.04.2023, as on the date the appeal was filed along with the documents physically. This approach of the 1st respondent cannot be accepted. Electronical filing of the appeal is a facilitation given to the assessees. That being so, the copy of the impugned order which was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the office of the 1st respondent only on 24.04.2023 and since the appeal in all respects ought to have been filed by 19.10.2022 and as such, there was a delay of about six months five days in between 26.09.2022 and 24.04.2023, which is beyond the condonable period under Section 107 of CGST Act and accordingly, rejected the appeal. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that admittedly the appeal was filed on 26.09.2022 online mentioning therein the particulars of the assessment order dated 20.07.2022, as the said assessment order was already uploaded by the Department on the official website and therefore, he mentioned the particulars of the said order. To that effect, learned counsel filed a copy of the screen shot showing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent has rightly rejected the appeal. 6. We heard the above respective contentions of both the learned counsel. 7. The point for consideration is Whether the impugned rejection order is sustainable in the eye of law? . 8. Admittedly, in this matter, the assessment order was passed on 20.07.2022 and the same was uploaded on the official website on the same date. It is a further admitted fact that the petitioner filed the appeal electronically on 26.09.2022, which was within the 90 days as prescribed under Section 107(1) of CGST Act. Now the bone of contention is with regard to the uploading of the certified copy. According to the petitioner, since the assessment order was already hoisted on department website, he made a reference of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
