Case Law Details
Neospark Drugs and Chemicals Private Limited Vs Additional Commissioner of Central Tax (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
In the case of Neospark Drugs and Chemicals Private Limited vs. Additional Commissioner of Central Tax, the petitioner challenged the rejection of their appeal against an assessment order by the Additional Commissioner of Central Tax (GST-Appeals). The rejection was based on the grounds of filing the appeal beyond the condonable period.
The petitioner had filed their appeal online on 26.09.2022, referencing the particulars of the assessment order dated 20.07.2022, which was already available on the official website. However, physical copies of the appeal were received by the office of the 1st respondent only on 24.04.2023, beyond the prescribed period. The 1st respondent rejected the appeal citing this delay.
The petitioner argued that by filing the appeal electronically and referencing the assessment order already available online, they had substantially complied with the requirement of filing the appeal. They contended that as per Rule 108, an appeal could be filed either electronically or otherwise, and since they had referenced the assessment order in the electronic filing, it should have been considered as filed within time.
On the other hand, the respondents argued that the petitioner had not produced an online certified copy as mandated, but only mentioned the date of the assessment order, which did not fulfill the conditions. They asserted that filing physical copies of the appeal and the assessment order on 24.04.2023 was beyond the condonable period, justifying the rejection of the appeal.
The High Court considered both arguments and the facts of the case. It noted that the assessment order was passed on 20.07.2022, and the petitioner had filed the appeal electronically on 26.09.2022, within the prescribed 90 days as per Section 107(1) of the CGST Act. The bone of contention was regarding the uploading of the certified copy.
Upon examining the documents provided, the Court found merit in the petitioner’s submission. It observed that since the assessment order was already available on the department website, the petitioner had referenced it while filing the appeal electronically. Therefore, the Court concluded that the requirement was substantially met, and the date of filing should have been considered as 26.09.2022.
The Court criticized the 1st respondent’s approach of considering the date of physical filing for determining the appeal’s timeliness. It emphasized that electronic filing is a facilitation for taxpayers, and referencing the available order online should suffice for easy reference.
Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the appeal filed electronically was within time. It directed the matter to be remitted back to the 1st respondent for registration and expedited decision in accordance with the law and rules. No costs were awarded in the case.
As a result, any pending interlocutory applications in the case were to be closed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
The challenge in this writ petition is to the order in Appeal No.06/2023(G) GST, dated 30.06.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Tax (GST-Appeals)/1st respondent, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the assessment order O.C.No.120/2022-2023, dated 20.07.2022, passed by the 2nd respondent, on the ground that the appeal was filed with a delay beyond the condonable period.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Sri C.Sanjeeva Rao and Smt.Shanthi Chandra, learned Jr.Standing Counsel for CBIC for the respondents 1 to 3 and learned Deputy Solicitor General for the 4th
3. As can be seen, the 1strespondent observed that the assessment order was passed on 20.07.2022 by the 2nd respondent and the appeal was filed online on 26.09.2022 but the physical copies of the appeal were received by the office of the 1st respondent only on 24.04.2023 and since the appeal in all respects ought to have been filed by 19.10.2022 and as such, there was a delay of about six months five days in between 26.09.2022 and 24.04.2023, which is beyond the condonable period under Section 107 of CGST Act and accordingly, rejected the appeal.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that admittedly the appeal was filed on 26.09.2022 online mentioning therein the particulars of the assessment order dated 20.07.2022, as the said assessment order was already uploaded by the Department on the official website and therefore, he mentioned the particulars of the said order. To that effect, learned counsel filed a copy of the screen shot showing the date of assessment order as 20.07.2022 and Order No.OIO No.01/2022-23-GST. Learned counsel would thus submit that the petitioner has complied with the requirement of filing the appeal online and the copy of the order. He would further submit that the petitioner filed the physical copies of appeal along with the required documents on 24.04.2023. Taking the said date, the 1st respondent held that the appeal was beyond the condonable period. Learned counsel for petitioner would further submit that as per Rule 108, appeal could be filed either electronically or otherwise and since the petitioner has filed the appeal electronically on 26.09.2022 and made a reference with regard to the impugned assessment order also therein, the 1st respondent ought to have considered the same and held that the appeal was filed well within time. However, taking the date of filing of the physical copies i.e., 24.04.2023, appeal was rejected holding that it was beyond the condonable period which is unjust.
5. Learned Jr.Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 would submit that though the petitioner filed the appeal online on 26.09.202, however, following the mandate of filing certified copy, he has not produced an online certified copy. However, he only mentioned the date of assessment order therein and thereby, has not fulfilled the conditions. He filed the physical copies of appeal and the assessment order copy only on 24.04.2023 which was far beyond the condonable period and therefore, the 1strespondent has rightly rejected the appeal.
6. We heard the above respective contentions of both the learned counsel.
7. The point for consideration is ‘Whether the impugned rejection order is sustainable in the eye of law?’.
8. Admittedly, in this matter, the assessment order was passed on 20.07.2022 and the same was uploaded on the official website on the same date. It is a further admitted fact that the petitioner filed the appeal electronically on 26.09.2022, which was within the 90 days as prescribed under Section 107(1) of CGST Act. Now the bone of contention is with regard to the uploading of the certified copy. According to the petitioner, since the assessment order was already hoisted on department website, he made a reference of the order number with OIO No.01/2022-23-GST and with order No.3CEEYK0402S07220015, dated 20.07.2022 and thus, substantially complied with the requirement.
9. On perusal of the copy of the screen shot filed along with the material papers, we find some force in the submission of learned counsel. Since admittedly the copy of the assessment order dated 20.07.2022 was already placed on the department website, the petitioner gave the reference of the said order while filing the appeal electronically. Therefore, we find force in the submission that the requirement was substantially met. Therefore, the 1st respondent ought to have taken the date of filing of the appeal as 26.09.2022 for all practical purposes. However, the 1strespondent took the date of filing as 24.04.2023, as on the date the appeal was filed along with the documents physically. In our considered view, this approach of the 1st respondent cannot be accepted. Electronical filing of the appeal is a facilitation given to the assessees. That being so, the copy of the impugned order which was already available on the web can be mentioned for easy reference.
8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the appeal filed by the petitioner in electronic mode is held as well within time and the matter is remitted back to the 1strespondent to register the appeal and decide the same in accordance with the governing law and rules expeditiously. No costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed.
Author Bio
