Case Law Details
Palaniyand Sharavanan Proprietor Vs Deputy Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court addressed a dispute regarding the filing date of a GST appeal in the case of Palaniyand Sharavanan Proprietor v. Deputy Commissioner (ST). The petitioner challenged the rejection of their appeal by the Deputy Commissioner (ST), GST-Appeal, which was deemed time-barred under Section 107(4) of the GST Act. The petitioner submitted the appeal online on August 23, 2024, but the authority considered the manual submission date of September 18, 2024, as the actual filing date. Since the appeal should have been filed by July 26, 2024, and an extension of one month was allowed, the physical submission fell outside the permissible period, leading to its rejection.
The High Court examined Rule 108(2) of the GST Rules, which states that once a provisional acknowledgment is issued, the filing date should be considered as the date of online submission. Since the petitioner’s online appeal submission on August 23, 2024, was acknowledged, it was within the extended limitation period. The Court ruled that the rejection was incorrect and directed the first appellate authority to number and hear the appeal, ensuring a fair opportunity for the petitioner. The writ petition was thus disposed of, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The present writ petition is filed challenging the order of the 1st appellate authority viz., The Deputy Commissioner (ST), GST-Appeal rejecting the petitioner’s appeal on the premise that it is filed beyond the period stipulated under 107(4) of the Act.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for the assessment period 2018-19 an order came to be passed on04.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had filed an appeal on 23.08.2024 and the same was also duly acknowledged. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner ought to have filed the appeal within a period of 3 months i.e. on or before 26.07.2024, but the appeal was filed on 23.08.2024. It is further submitted that the appellate authority has the discretion to condone the if sufficient cause is shown in presenting the appeal within a further period of one month from the prescribed period of 3 months.
3. The learned counsel for the Respondents would submit that though the petitioner have uploaded the appeal on 23.08.2024, nevertheless the hard copy/ physical/ manual appeal was filed on 18.09.2024 and that has been taken to be the date of filing the appeal. Resultantly, the impugned order has been passed treating the appeal as having been filed after the statutory period of limitation.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the above submission is contrary to the proviso to Rule 108(2) of the GST Rules, which provides that the date of issue of provisional acknowledgment shall be considered as the date of filing of appeal. The same is extracted hereunder:
“Rule 108. Appeal to the Appellate Authority.-
(2) The grounds of appeal and the form of verification as contained in FORM GST APL-01 shall be signed in the manner specified in rules 26.
Provided that where the decision or order appealed against is not uploaded on the common portal, the appellant shall submit a self-certified copy of the said decision or order within a period of seven days from the date of filing of FORM GST APL01 and a final acknowledgment, indicating appeal number, shall be issued in FORM GST APL-02 by the Appellate Authority or an officer authorised by him in this behalf, and the date of issue of the provisional acknowledgment shall be considered as the date of filing of appeal:”
(emphasis supplied)
5. From a reading of the above Rule, this Court is of the view that even if for some reason, the appeal is defective, once a provisional acknowledgment is issued then the date of filing would relate back to provisional acknowledgment i.e., 23.08.2024, in the present case which is well within the limitation under Section 107(7) of the Act, and the same is not in dispute.
6. In view thereof, the impugned order dated 21.10.2024 is set aside. The 1st Respondent is directed to number the appeal and proceed to hear the appeal and pass orders in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Author Bio
