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


Last updated: 03 July 2024

Court :
Madras High Court

Brief :
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.

Citation :
W. P. Nos. W.P. NOS. 12497, 12498, 12500 & 12501 OF 2024 of 2024 dated June 06, 2024

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

 

Bimal Jain
Published in GST
Views : 255
downloaded 277 times

Comments




CCI Pro

Follow us
add to google news


Company
09 June 2026
Accounts Associate

S Madan and CO

New Delhi

Graduate (Any)

View Details
Company
19 June 2026
Accounts Executive

Getfive Advisors Pvt. Ltd.

Ahmedabad

CA Inter

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 30 June 2026
2 posts Article assistant and Articleship completed students

Chirag N Shah & Associates

Mumbai

CA Inter

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 24 June 2026
CA Article Trainee

Rahul Dang & Associates

Pune

CA Inter

View Details
Company
29 June 2026
ACCOUNTANT

SANDEEP AASHISH & CO

Araria

B.Com

View Details
Company
25 June 2026
AUDIT MANAGER

JDAS & ASSOCIATES

New Delhi

CA

View Details
Company
29 June 2026
Accountant (Finance & Compliance)

TRIEYEZ

Kolkata

CA

View Details
Company
22 June 2026
Finance Manager- Chartered Accountant

Triveni Turbine Limited

Bengaluru

CA

View Details