Chegg INDIA PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.
Held
The Court held that the condition to physically file the certified copy of the impugned decision/order is not mandatory, especially when online filing was completed within the prescribed limitation period. The Court noted that the amendment to Rule 108 of the CGST Rules, 2017, effective from December 26, 2022, clarified that an appeal filed prior to the amendment, where the certified copy was submitted with a delay, could be condoned if the online filing was within the limitation period. The Court found that the online filing for OIA No. 105-115 and OIA No. 131 was within the prescribed time, and the genuineness of the order copy was not in doubt. Therefore, the Petitioner should not be deprived of a hearing on merits. However, for OIA No. 132, the online filing was also beyond the statutory prescribed period. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals concerning OIA No. 105-115 and OIA No. 131, remitting them back to the Appellate Authority for decision on merits, subject to the Petitioner depositing Rs. 25,000/- as costs. The writ petition was rejected concerning OIA No. 132.
Facts
Chegg India Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging orders passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST, Appeals-1, Delhi (Respondent No. 2). These orders rejected the Petitioner's appeals against various refund orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST (Proper Officer). The appeals were rejected on the grounds of being barred by limitation. The Petitioner claimed that their appeals were filed within the prescribed limitation period, considering the online filing date, while the Appellate Authority considered the physical filing date. The refund applications pertained to accumulated input credit for periods ranging from May 2019 to May 2020.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeals filed by the Petitioner before the Appellate Authority were within the prescribed limitation period, considering the interplay between online and physical filing dates under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 108 of the CGST Rules, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner contended that the Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the appeals on grounds of delay. They argued that the appeals were filed within the limitation period as per the online filing dates. They relied on the amended Rule 108 of the CGST Rules, 2017, which came into effect from December 26, 2022, and argued that this amendment was clarificatory in nature and should be applied retrospectively. They cited the case of Hitachi Energy India Ltd. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. to support the retrospective application of the amendment. Revenue's Arguments: The Revenue contended that the benefit of the amended rule should not be extended to the Petitioner as there was a clear delay in the filing of the physical certified copy of the order. They emphasized the delay in physical filing.
Sections Cited
Section 54, Section 54(7), Section 107, Section 107(1), Section 107(4), Rule 108, Rule 108(1), Rule 108(2), Rule 108(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
W.P.(C) 1062/2024 $~30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 20th December, 2024 + W.P.(C) 1062/2024 & CM APPL. 4433/2024 CHEGG INDIA PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Yogendra Aldak, Mr. Agim Arora and Ms. Purvi Sinha, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC, CBIC, Mr. Ritwik Saha, Mr. Umang Mishra, Ms. Medha Navami, Mr. Sahil Parashar & Mr. Inderjeet, Advs. (M: 9958846148) CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner-Chegg India Pvt. Ltd. under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging various impugned orders passed by Respondent No.2-Additional Commissioner, CGST, Appeals-1, Delhi on different dates. The impugned orders are categorised as under: i. Order in Appeal No. 105 to 115 dated 18th April, 2023 (hereinafter ‘OIA No. 105 to 115’) ii. Order in Appeal No. 131 dated 28th April, 2023 (hereinafter ‘OIA No. 131’) iii. Order in Appeal No. 132 dated 28th April, 2023 (hereinafter ‘OIA No. 132’)
These appeals arise from various refund application
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.