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.
