9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amendment is clarificatory in nature, it would have a retrospective effect. The retrospective effect of Rule 108(3) of the Rules, 2017 has also been considered by the Gujrat High Court in Otsuka Pharmaceuticals India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India [ 2024 (4) TMI 282 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and also by the Karnataka High Court in the matter of M/s Hitachi Energy India Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others [ 2024 (7) TMI 53 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] . Since on the date of passing of the order dated 11.03.2024, the notification already came into force from 26.12.2022 and it is found that it is clarificatory in nature with retrospective effect on the provisions of Rule 108(3) of the Rules, 2017, the impugned order passed by the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and penalty of Rs. 67,092/-. On 07.03.2020 the petitioner was demanded the details of the assessment but instead of replying the request made by the petitioner, another notice in the Form of DRC-1A dated 11.12.2020 has been served upon him which was duly replied by the petitioner on 16.12.2020. 3. On 18.01.2021, the petitioner again received a notice under Section 74(1) of the Act, 2017 in the Form of DRC-01 with respect to mismatch of amount in GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B. The petitioner again submitted his representation on 28.02.2021, but instead of considering the representation of the petitioner, the respondent have authorities sent a demand notice on 22.06.2021 demanding total penalty of Rs. 1,29,734/-. On 16.08.2021, the respondent No.3 has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and there was no necessity to file certified copy of the same. Therefore, he prayed for setting aside of the impugned order and his appeal may be heard on its merits by the appellate authority. 6. On the other hand the counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and would submit that Rule 108 of the CGST Rules clearly provides submission of certified copy along with appeal, but the petitioner has not annexed the certified copy of the impugned order along with appeal. Thus, the appellate authority has rightly considered the legal provisions of the CGST Act and Rules and therefore the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er is required to submit copy of the impugned order against which the appeal is preferred within 7 days of filing of appeal under Sub-rule (1) and then final acknowledgment indicating appeal number is to be issued in Form GST APL-02 by the appellate authority. Therefore, while applying Rule 108(3) by the appellate authority, dismissal of the appeal on the ground of delay appears to be justified. However, there is an amendment in Rule 108 (3) of Rules, 2017 which is notified on 26.12.2022, which reads as under: 13. In the said rules, in rule 108, for sub-rule(3), the following sub-rule shall be substituted namely- (3) Where the decision or order appealed against is uploaded on the common portal, a final acknowledgment indicating appeal numbe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
