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

The Madras High Court has ruled that an appeal should not be rejected solely due to a procedural lapse, such as failing to submit a copy of the original order on time. In this case, Indian Potash Ltd.'s appeal was initially rejected for not complying with Rule 108(3) of the CGST Rules. However, the High Court, referencing a similar Orissa High Court judgment, stated that such non-compliance is a technical defect, and if the appeal was filed within the statutory time limit, it should be entertained. The court directed the adjudicating authority to accept the appeal.

The Hon'ble Madras High Court in Indian Potash Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner (ST)[W. P. Nos. W.P. NOS. 12497, 12498, 12500 & 12501 OF 2024 of 2024 dated June 06, 2024] 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 W. P. Nos. 14718 & 14723 of 2024 held that:

• Relied upon the judgement of the Orissa High Court in M/s. Atlas PVC Pipes Ltd. v. State of Odisha [2022 (65) G. S. T. L. 45 (Ori.)], 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.

OFFICIAL JUDGMENT COPY HAS BEEN ENCLOSED BELOW