Case Law Details
Indian Potash Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court)
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.
Conclusion : The Madras High Court’s ruling in Indian Potash Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner (ST) highlights the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that procedural lapses do not thwart substantive justice. This decision reinforces that timely filed appeals should be entertained, even if there are minor procedural shortcomings. The case sets a significant precedent for handling similar issues in the future, ensuring that procedural technicalities do not undermine the pursuit of justice.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
In these writ petitions, the petitioner seeks a direction to the first respondent to accept the appeal by treating the date of filing of the appeal as 18.06.2021.
2. In the above case, refund rejection order was issued against the petitioner in relation to claim for refund of IGST on ocean freight. The appeal was presented on 18.06.2021 before the appellate authority. As per Rule 108(3) of applicable GST Rules, the petitioner was required to file a hard copy of the impugned order within seven days of presentation of the appeal. This requirement was not complied with until 02.02.2024.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of this Court in M/s.PKV Agencies v. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST) (Appeals), Vellore, (PKV Agencies) , 2023 (2) TMI 932 to contend that Rule 108(3) is a purely procedural requirement and that the appeal is required to be processed provided the appeal was filed within time. Apart from pointing out that the impugned order is available with the appellate authority, learned counsel further submits that the question of refund of IGST on ocean freight was decided by several High Courts, including this Court. In those circumstances, learned counsel submits that great prejudice would be caused to the petitioner unless the appeal is processed.
4. K.Vasanthamala, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for the respondents. She points out that the appeal was not processed on account of the petitioner not filing the physical copy of the impugned order.
5. In PKV Agencies, this Court followed the judgment of the Orissa High Court in M/s.Atlas PVC Pipes Ltd. v. State of Odisha, (PVC Pipes Ltd.) 2022 (7) TMI 130. In effect, the Court concluded 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. In the case at hand, the refund rejection order was issued on 19.03.2021 and the appeal was lodged on 18.06.2021. As such, the appeal was filed within time limit prescribed by statute. In those circumstances, the ratio of PKV Agencies is applicable. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the first respondent to process the appeal by not rejecting the same on the ground that the physical copy of the impugned order was filed on 02.02.2024. If the appeal is otherwise in order, the first respondent is directed to number the appeal within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. W.P.Nos.12497, 12498, 12500 and 12501 of 2024 are disposed of on the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
****
(Author can be reached at [email protected])