Mukesh Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

This petition assails the order passed in appeal dated 06.11.2024 (Annexure P-7), which records that as the self-attested copy of the order-in- original has not been annexed, therefore, the appeal itself is liable to be dismissed. Reference is made to Rule 108(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal was presented within time, and the mere fact that the copy of the order-in-original was not self-attested, could not have been a ground to dismiss the appeal. It is submitted that there was at best a technical default, and the petitioner could have been permitted to rectify such mistake. It is argued that the manner in which the authority concerned has proceeded to dismiss the appeal, leaves much to be desired.

Learned counsel for the Revenue states that the appellate authority MOHIT GOYAL 2026.08.25 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

In the facts of the case, we find the approach adopted by the appellate authority to be hypertechnical and wholly uncalled for, inasmuch as for any error in self-attestation of the copy of the order, the petitioner could have been given an opportunity to correct such mistake.

So far as second proviso to Rule 108(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 is concerned, the provision contemplates submission of self-attested certified copy of the decision or order within seven days from the date of filing of Form GST APL-01, and the date of such submission is to be treated as the date of filing of the appeal. In the present case, the appeal was not only entertained by the respondents, but no defect was pointed out regarding non-self-attestation of the order impugned in appeal. Various dates for hearing were also fixed, wherein also, the petitioner was not confronted with such aspect. It is, therefore, apparent that the authority had not relied upon Rule 108(3), and the appeal was not only numbered and entertained, but was substantially proceeded with, by affording opportunity of hearing etc., to the petitioner.

It is in this context that we disapprove of the act of the respondents in dismissing the appeal itself on the ground of non-self-attestation of the order impugned in appeal. The proper course for the appellate authority was to have confronted the petitioner with this aspect, and only if there was an intentional failure thereafter, that the exercise of power under Rule 108(3) could have been approved of. The appellate authority while exercising its quasi-judicial powers was expected to have acted in furtherance of the adjudication of the appeal on merits, and ought not to have relied on such technical objection to dismiss the appeal. MOHIT GOYAL 2026.08.25 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

In that view of the matter, the present writ petition is allowed. The order passed in appeal dated 06.11.2024 (Annexure P-7) is set aside. The petitioner shall incorporate self-attestation on the order impugned in appeal within a week, and the appellate authority shall proceed to decide the cause raised in the appeal on merits.

Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.