9911796707🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Follow us:
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 1892 - HC - GSTInterest on delayed payment of pre-deposit has been paid to the petitioner - failure to submit the certified copy of the order within the prescribed period under the pre-amended Rule 108 - HELD THAT - 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 merely because the physical submission of the appeal and the order was much later when the online filing was within the prescribed time cannot deprive the Petitioner of hearing on merits. In most Courts and Tribunals online filing and electronic filing is now prescribed mode and the Courts are moving towards technologically advance systems. It would be retrograde to opine that online filing which was complete in all respects including electronic copy of the order is not valid filing. - The Delhi High Court while considering the issue which is identical to the issue in hand 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 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 18.08.2021 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. The impugned order dated 24.12.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner Grade - 2 (Appeal) State Tax Ghaziabad cannot be sustained in the eyes of law - petition allowed.
Issues Presented and Considered
The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter are:
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis 1. Validity of the Appeal Filing under Rule 108 of the CGST Rules, 2017 Legal Framework and Precedents: Rule 108 of the CGST Rules, 2017 governs the procedure for filing appeals to the Appellate Authority under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act. The unamended Rule 108(3) required submission of a certified copy of the order appealed against within seven days of filing the appeal. Failure to submit this certified copy within the stipulated period meant that the date of filing of the appeal would be the date of submission of the certified copy, effectively delaying the filing date. Subsequent amendment to Rule 108(3), effective 26.12.2022, introduced a distinction based on whether the order appealed against was uploaded on the common portal. If uploaded, the date of provisional acknowledgement is considered the date of filing. If not, the appellant must submit a self-certified copy within seven days; failure to do so results in the date of filing being the date of submission of the certified copy. The Delhi High Court decision in Chegg India Private Limited v. Union of India clarified that the requirement to furnish a certified copy is procedural and not mandatory in a strict sense, especially when the appeal is filed electronically with all relevant documents. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the petitioner filed the appeal electronically on 18.08.2021, along with the copy of the order appealed against, as admitted and supported by the supplementary affidavit. The Court emphasized that the amendment to Rule 108(3) was procedural and clarificatory, not altering substantive rights. The Court relied on the Delhi High Court's reasoning that the physical submission of the certified copy is not mandatory if the appeal is electronically filed within the limitation period with the relevant documents. The Court further observed that the impugned order dismissing the appeal on grounds of laches due to delayed submission of the certified copy was contrary to the procedural nature of the requirement and the evolving practice of electronic filing. Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner's appeal was filed electronically within the prescribed limitation period, and a copy of the order appealed against was submitted along with the appeal. The State did not deny these facts. The amendment to Rule 108(3) came into effect during the pendency of the appeal, clarifying the procedural requirement. Application of Law to Facts: Given the electronic filing of the appeal with the order copy within time, the Court held that the procedural lapse in physically submitting a certified copy within seven days was not fatal. The amendment to Rule 108(3) supports this interpretation, and the petitioner should not be deprived of the right to be heard on merits due to a technical defect. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The State contended that since the certified copy was not submitted within the prescribed time under the pre-amended Rule 108, the appeal was not maintainable and the amendment could not be applied retrospectively. The Court rejected this, holding that the amendment was clarificatory and procedural, and that the electronic filing with the order copy within limitation sufficed. Conclusion: The appeal was validly filed within limitation, and the procedural lapse regarding certified copy submission does not justify dismissal on grounds of laches. 2. Retrospective Application of the Amendment to Rule 108 Legal Framework and Precedents: The principle that procedural amendments apply retrospectively unless expressly stated otherwise was relied upon. The Court cited its own precedent in Deepu & Others v. State of U.P., which supports retrospective application of procedural amendments. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court held that the amendment to Rule 108 was procedural in nature, intended to clarify existing practice rather than introduce substantive change. Therefore, it applied retrospectively to appeals filed before the amendment date. Key Evidence and Findings: The amendment clarified that electronic filing with the order copy uploaded on the common portal constitutes valid filing, and physical submission of certified copy within seven days is only required if the order is not uploaded. This procedural clarification benefits appellants like the petitioner. Application of Law to Facts: Since the petitioner filed electronically with the copy of the order, the amendment's retrospective application supports the validity of the appeal filing. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The State argued against retrospective application, but the Court found no contrary intention in the amendment and emphasized the procedural nature of the change. Conclusion: The amendment to Rule 108 applies retrospectively, validating the petitioner's appeal filing. 3. Effect of Non-compliance with Rule 108 and Dismissal of Appeal on Grounds of Laches Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court considered the Limitation Act, 1963 and the principle that procedural requirements should not defeat substantive rights. The Delhi High Court and Orissa High Court decisions were cited, which held that non-submission of certified copy within time is a procedural defect and should not result in dismissal if the appeal was otherwise filed within limitation. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court emphasized that the requirement to submit the certified copy is procedural and non-compliance should not deprive a party of hearing on merits. The Court observed that electronic filing is the prescribed mode in most courts and tribunals, and it would be retrograde to deny validity to an electronically filed appeal due to delayed physical submission of documents. Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner filed the appeal electronically with the order copy within limitation. The delay in physical submission was a mere technical defect. Application of Law to Facts: The impugned order dismissing the appeal on grounds of laches was quashed, and the matter was remanded for consideration on merits. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The State's argument that the appeal was not maintainable due to non-compliance was rejected in light of the procedural nature of the requirement and the petitioner's compliance with electronic filing norms. Conclusion: Dismissal of the appeal on grounds of laches for delay in submitting certified copy was not justified; the petitioner is entitled to adjudication on merits. Significant Holdings "The condition to physically file the certified copy of the impugned decision/order is not mandatory. Therefore, an appeal filed prior to the amendment, where the certified copy was submitted with a delay, may be condoned if the online filing was completed within the prescribed limitation period." "Merely because the physical submission of the appeal and the order was much later, when the online filing was within the prescribed time, cannot deprive the Petitioner of hearing on merits." "The amendment dated 26th December 2022 which was made in Rule 108 shows that the said amendment was merely clarificatory in nature. It was merely clarifying the rule as it existed and, therefore, the benefit of online filing along with the electronic copy of the order ought to be considered as sufficiently within the limitation period." "The impugned order dated 24.12.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade - 2 (Appeal), State Tax, Ghaziabad cannot be sustained in the eyes of law." The Court established the core principle that procedural requirements such as submission of certified copies within a prescribed period under Rule 108 are not mandatory conditions that can defeat substantive rights if electronic filing with relevant documents is timely made. Procedural amendments clarifying such requirements apply retrospectively unless expressly stated otherwise. Consequently, appeals filed electronically within limitation cannot be dismissed solely on the ground of delayed physical submission of certified copies. The final determination was to quash the impugned order dismissing the appeal for non-compliance with Rule 108 and remand the matter to the appellate authority for consideration on merits, thereby upholding the petitioner's right to a hearing and substantive adjudication.
|
