2025 (7) TMI 1187 - HC - GST

Rejection of petitioner s appeal on the ground of being time barred - Petitioner had not filed an Appeal against the Order-in-Original within the prescribed time limit as per Section 107(1) of the CGST Act 2017 - HELD THAT - Firstly the petitioner could not be prejudiced due to the technical glitch when the appeal was first filed on 25 June 2024. Secondly it is clear from Exhibit-M that the appeal was re-filed on 12 July 2024 within the condonable period under Section 107. The Respondent No. 2 has erred in considering the date of physical filing especially when the GST Portal itself clearly shows that the appeal was re-filed on 12 July 2024. In any case even if Respondent No. 2 wished to dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation it was incumbent for him to first give the petitioner notice and opportunity to clarify and provide evidence of the date of filing of the appeal. In Siemens Ltd V. Union of India Ors. 2024 (9) TMI 540 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and Bytedance (India) Technology Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Union of India Ors. 2024 (9) TMI 397 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT this Court in identical matters has quashed the order of the appellate authority and remanded for de novo consideration. The impugned order was made without hearing any of the parties. The appellate authority before concluding that the appeal was barred by limitation should have at least heard the parties so that they could have explained why it was not barred by limitation - appeal restored to the file of the Appellate Authority. Since it is satisfied that the appeal was instituted within the period of limitation it is directed that the appeal be now disposed of on its own merits and in accordance with law. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

ISSUES:

Whether the appeal against the Order-in-Original was filed within the prescribed time limit under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.Whether the appellate authority erred in rejecting the appeal as time-barred without giving notice or opportunity to the appellant to clarify the date of filing.Whether the appeal filed through the GST Portal, but wrongly assigned due to a technical glitch, should be considered validly filed within the limitation period.Whether the appellate authority was required to hear the petitioner on the application for condonation of delay before rejecting the appeal.Whether the appellate authority's failure to hear the parties before concluding the appeal was barred by limitation was legally permissible.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The appeal was filed within the prescribed time limit as per Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, considering the initial filing on 25 June 2024 and the re-filing on 12 July 2024 within the condonable period.The appellate authority erred in rejecting the appeal as time-barred without first giving the petitioner notice and opportunity to clarify and provide evidence of the date of filing.The technical glitch in the GST Portal assigning the appeal to the wrong appellate authority did not prejudice the petitioner and the appeal should be considered validly filed within the limitation period.The appellate authority was obliged to hear the petitioner on the application for condonation of delay and its failure to do so was improper.The appellate authority's decision to dismiss the appeal without hearing the parties was contrary to principles of natural justice and was set aside.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, which prescribes the time limit for filing appeals and allows for a condonable delay of one month.Precedents from identical matters were considered, where appellate orders rejecting appeals on limitation grounds without hearing were quashed and remanded for de novo consideration.The Court emphasized the principle that an appellant should not be prejudiced due to technical glitches in the GST Portal, especially when the appeal was re-filed within the condonable period.The Court underscored the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice, requiring the appellate authority to provide notice and hearing before rejecting appeals on limitation grounds.The ruling reflects a doctrinal insistence on procedural fairness and proper opportunity to be heard before dismissing appeals on technical or limitation grounds.