M/S. Neospark Drugs And Chemicals Private Limited vs. The Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax

Held

The Court held that the impugned rejection order is not sustainable in law. It was an admitted fact that the assessment order was passed on July 20, 2022, and uploaded on the official website on the same date. The petitioner filed the appeal electronically on September 26, 2022, which was within the 90 days prescribed under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act. The Court found merit in the petitioner's submission that since the assessment order was already available on the department's website, providing a reference to it while filing the appeal electronically substantially complied with the requirement. Therefore, the appellate authority ought to have considered the date of electronic filing, September 26, 2022, as the effective date of filing. The Court found the appellate authority's approach of taking the physical filing date of April 24, 2023, as the date of filing unacceptable, as electronic filing is a facilitation for assessees. The Court allowed the writ petition, holding the electronic appeal filing as well within time, and remitted the matter back to the first respondent to register the appeal and decide it on merits expeditiously.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order by the Additional Commissioner of Central Tax (GST-Appeals) which rejected their appeal against an assessment order. The rejection was based on the appeal being filed with a delay beyond the condonable period. The assessment order was passed on July 20, 2022. The petitioner filed the appeal electronically on September 26, 2022, referencing the assessment order. However, the physical copies of the appeal were received by the appellate authority only on April 24, 2023. The appellate authority considered the delay from September 26, 2022, to April 24, 2023, as approximately six months and five days, which exceeded the condonable period under Section 107 of the CGST Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned rejection order by the Additional Commissioner of Central Tax (GST-Appeals) is sustainable in law, considering the petitioner filed the appeal electronically on September 26, 2022, referencing an assessment order uploaded on the department's website, but submitted physical copies on April 24, 2023. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that they complied with the requirement of filing the appeal electronically on September 26, 2022, by referencing the assessment order which was already uploaded on the official website. They argued that under Rule 108 of the CGST Act, appeals can be filed either electronically or otherwise, and the electronic filing with reference to the uploaded order should be considered as well within time. The rejection based on the physical filing date was unjust. Revenue's arguments: The respondents argued that although the petitioner filed the appeal online on September 26, 2022, they did not produce an online certified copy. They only mentioned the date of the assessment order, thereby not fulfilling the conditions. The physical copies were filed on April 24, 2023, which was far beyond the condonable period, and thus the appellate authority rightly rejected the appeal.