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

 

CCI Pro

Bimal Jain
Published in GST
Views : 166
downloaded 252 times

Comments

CAclubindia's WhatsApp Groups Link



CCI Pro
Meet our CAclubindia PRO Members

Follow us
add to google news



Company
Featured 14 April 2026
GST CONSULTANT

Abhishek G Agrawal & Co.

Korba

CA Final

View Details
Company
Featured 19 March 2026
Article Assistant

Gupta Sachdeva & Co. Chartered Accountants

New Delhi

CA Final

View Details
Company
Featured 28 March 2026
Accountant

Ashok Amol & Associates

New Delhi

B.Com

View Details
Company
Featured 14 March 2026
Associate CA

N N V Satish&co

Hyderabad

CA

View Details
Company
Featured 14 March 2026
Article Trainee

N N V Satish&co

Hyderabad

CA Inter

View Details
Company
Featured 13 April 2026
GST CONSULTANCY

Abhishek G Agrawal & Co.

Korba

CA Final

View Details
Company
Featured 12 March 2026
Customer Relationship Executive

TAXLET

Calicut

B.Com

View Details
Company
Featured 28 March 2026
CA Final

Ashok Amol & Associates

New Delhi

CA Final

View Details