Case Law Details
Indian Potash Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court)
In the case of Indian Potash Limited v. Deputy Commissioner (ST), the Madras High Court addressed three writ petitions seeking direction for the acceptance of appeals filed by the petitioner concerning rejection orders for refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on ocean freight. The key issue in contention was the procedural requirement under Rule 108(3) of the GST Rules, which mandates filing a hard copy of the impugned order within seven days of presenting the appeal.
The petitioner had filed all three appeals on 18th June 2021, but failed to submit the physical copies of the impugned orders until 2nd February 2024, well beyond the stipulated timeframe. The central argument put forth by the petitioner’s counsel relied on a precedent set by the Madras High Court in M/s. PKV Agencies v. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST) (Appeals), Vellore (referred to as PKV Agencies), where it was established that the failure to produce the hard copy of the impugned order is a technical defect and should not hinder the processing of the appeal if filed within the statutory time limit.
Furthermore, counsel highlighted that the issue of refund of IGST on ocean freight had been extensively addressed and decided by various High Courts, including the Madras High Court itself. Therefore, delaying the processing of the appeals solely due to the non-submission of physical copies of orders would unjustly prejudice the petitioner.
Ms. K. Vasanthamala, the learned Government Advocate representing the respondents, acknowledged the non-compliance with the filing requirement and the consequent non-processing of the appeals. However, she did not dispute the applicability of the PKV Agencies ruling, where the Orissa High Court’s decision in M/s. Atlas PVC Pipes Ltd. v. State of Odisha was followed to emphasize the procedural nature of the requirement.
In light of the arguments and precedents cited, the Madras High Court determined that the appeals were indeed filed within the statutory time limit prescribed by law. Hence, the Court applied the ratio decidendi of PKV Agencies, emphasizing that the failure to submit the hard copy of the impugned order should not impede the processing of the appeals if they are otherwise valid and in compliance with other substantive requirements.
Consequently, the High Court disposed of the three writ petitions by directing the first respondent (Deputy Commissioner) to process the respective appeals without rejecting them solely on the grounds of the belated submission of physical copies of the impugned orders. The first respondent was further instructed to number the appeals within one month from the receipt of the Court’s order, provided all other procedural aspects were in order.
In summary, the Madras High Court’s decision in Indian Potash Limited v. Deputy Commissioner (ST) reaffirms the principle that procedural requirements, such as the submission of physical copies of orders, should not overshadow substantive rights of appeal, especially when appeals are filed within the stipulated statutory timelines.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
In these three writ petitions, the petitioner seeks a direction to the first respondent to accept the respective appeals by treating the date of filing the appeal as 18.06.2021.
2. In the above cases, refund rejection orders were issued against the petitioner in relation to claims for refund of IGST on ocean freight. All three appeals were 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 appeals are processed.
4. Ms. K. Vasanthamala, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for the respondents. She points out that the appeals were not processed on account of the petitioner not filing the physical copy of the impugned orders.
5. In PKV Agencies, this Court followed the judgment of the Orissa High Court inM/s. Atlas PVC Pipes Ltd. v. State of Odisha, 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 cases at hand, the refund rejection orders were issued on 19.03.2021 and the appeals were lodged on 18.06.2021. As such, the appeals were filed within time limit prescribed by statute. In those circumstances, the ratio of PKV Agencies is applicable. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing the first respondent to process the respective appeals by not rejecting the same on the ground that the physical copy of the impugned orders were filed on 02.02.2024. If the appeals are otherwise in order, the first respondent is directed to number the appeals within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. W.P.Nos.12101, 12103 & 12105 of 2024 are disposed of on the above terms. No costs.
Author Bio
