M/S Lenovo INDIA Private Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central Tax (Appeals -1)

Heard Sri L.S.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Aravind V. Chavan, learned counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner suffers an order at the hands of the juri ictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Taxes, rejecting refund amounting to Rs. 1,43,97,633/- and sanctioning an amount of Rs. 5,52,29,955/- out of the total claim of Rs. 6,96,27,588/-, and further demanding Rs. 1,68,716/- alongwith interest and penalty under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 as the petitioner was declared to be ineligible for input tax credit. The order comes about on 09.08.2021. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order of the Assistant Commissioner prefers an appeal HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40369 under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by filing the same online, on 02.11.2021. The hard copy of the appeal was also filed before the Tappal section in the same building. Two years passed by, the petitioner does not get any notice / orders from the appellate authority. Therefore, division bench has held as follows: HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40369 “8. Rule 108 (1) as it stood prior to amendment, permitted the appellant to file an appeal along with relevant documents either electronically or otherwise. On such filing, a provisional acknowledgment was to be issued to the appellant immediately.

Sub Rule (3) stipulates that certified copy of the decision or order appealed against is to be submitted within seven days of filing of the appeal. On such filing, a final acknowledgment is to be issued by the Appellate Authority or an Officer authorised in that behalf.

In the instant case, appellant, on 26.11.2022 i.e. within five days of the filing of the appeal through the online portal, sent the hardcopy of the order appealed against by post to the Office of Commissioner of Central Tax. Petitioner subsequently learnt that the hardcopy of the original order was forwarded to the Department of GST-I instead of GST-II.

Appellant submitted that they had got a telephonic information from GST-I that the documents pertain to GST-II. Appellant, thereafter, immediately on 20.01.2023, collected the documents from GST-I and submitted the same to GST-II.

The above factual matrix that the hardcopy was sent by the petitioner within time, however, to a wrong Department, is not controverted by the Department. The only reason given for the rejection of the appeal is that the same has been filed late. The date of filing being taken as the date when the hardcopy was collected by the petitioner from GST-I and handed over to GST-II.

We note that there is no dispute that the petitioner filed the appeal within time along with a scanned copy of Order-in-Original as an annexure. Said filing was done within a period of three months, thereafter, petitioner sent the original Order-in-Original by post, however, to an incorrect Department. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40369

Action of the petitioner was clearly bonafide and the error was not of a nature that could have led to the order rejecting the appeal solely on the ground of limitation. Had the petitioner been informed immediately on the receipt by GST-I, petitioner would have rectified the error immediately, however, as per the communication placed on record by the petitioner, petitioner was informed by the officers of GST-I about the incorrect filing and immediately thereafter, petitioner took the remedial steps.

Since the action of the petitioner is bonafide and petitioner appears to be diligently prosecuting the appeal, we are of the view that there is no delay attributable to the petitioner in filing of the appeal. Consequently, we hold that the appeal has been filed within time. Even if there was some delay in filing the appeal, the delay appears to be bonafide. Accordingly, we are of the view that delay, if any, is liable to be condoned. Consequently, the impugned order dated 18.05.2023 is set aside. Appeal is restored on the file of Appellate Authority i.e Commissioner of Central Sales Tax, Appeals-II. Said Officer is directed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law on merits.

For the sake of completeness, we may also note that with effect from 04.08.2023, said Rule has been amended and online filing has been made mandatory and only in exceptional circumstances, manual filing has been permitted. Proviso to Sub Rule (3), that has been added permits a self- certified copy of the order to be uploaded.”

Sri Aravind V. Chavan, learned counsel for the respondents would now submit that since the soft copy of the appeal is filed, it would be considered on its merit and accepts HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40369 that the issue in the lis stands answered in the afore-quoted judgment of the High Court of Delhi.

In that light, the petition deserves to succeed, with a direction holding that the appeal is filed within time and the appropriate authority to consider the appeal on its merit and pass necessary orders in accordance with law.

For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER a. The writ petition is allowed. b. The order dated 30.12.2024, passed by respondent No.1 stands quashed. c. The matter is returned back to the hands of respondent No.1 to answer the appeal filed by the petitioner on 02.11.2021, on its merits in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15/CT:SS