M/S. Mistral And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, M/s. Mistral & Anr., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 28th March, 2023, passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017. This order dismissed their appeal on the grounds of limitation. The original order being appealed against was dated 22nd June, 2022. The petitioners had filed their appeal online on 23rd August, 2022, which was within the prescribed limitation period. However, they filed the certified copy of the order on 16th December, 2022. The appellate authority treated the date of filing the certified copy as the date of filing the appeal, leading to its rejection.
Held
The Court held that the appeal should be construed to have been filed within time. The reasoning was that the petitioners had filed their appeal online on 23rd August, 2022, which was within the prescribed limitation period. Although the certified copy was submitted belatedly on 16th December, 2022, this was in respect of an appeal where the order was already available on the common portal. The Court noted that Rule 108(3) of the CGST/WBGST Rules, 2017, had been substituted effective 26th December, 2022, and the substituted rule dispensed with the procedure of filing certified copies for orders available on the portal, simplifying the process. The Court viewed the appeal as having been filed in time and directed that the appeal be heard on merits after condoning any delay in filing the certified copy. The ratio decidendi is that if an appeal is filed online within the statutory period, and the order is available on the portal, a delay in filing the certified copy should be condoned, and the appeal should be heard on merits.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioners before the appellate authority was within the period of limitation, considering the date of online filing versus the date of filing the certified copy of the order, in light of Rule 108(3) of the CGST/WBGST Rules, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that their appeal was filed online on 23rd August, 2022, which was within the limitation period. They contended that the appellate authority erred by treating the date of filing the certified copy (16th December, 2022) as the appeal filing date, especially since the order was available on the common portal. They relied on the fact that the appeal was filed within time, and the subsequent filing of the certified copy should not render it time-barred. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the respondents (Union of India & Ors.).
Sections Cited
Section 107, Rule 108(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
M/L 62 30.06.2025 sb Ct 5
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURI ICTION APPELLATE SIDE
WPA 4074 of 2025
M/s. Mistral & Anr. Versus Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Siddhartha Das Gupta
Mr. Souvik Guha
Mr. Gausul Alam
… For the petitioner.
Ms. Manasi Mukherjee
Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee
… For the respondents.
Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record.
Challenging the order dated 28th March, 2023, passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation, the instant writ petition has been filed.
Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record.
Records would reveal that the order appealed against was dated 22nd June, 2022. The petitioners had preferred an appeal online on 23rd August, 2022 which is within the period of limitation. From the records it would transpire that the order appealed against was duly
2
uploaded on the portal. The petitioners in this case had filed certified copy of the order on 16th December, 2022. It appears that the appellate authority had proceeded to reject the appeal by treating that the date of filing of the certified copy of the order as the date of filing of the appeal. The records would further reveal that Rule 108(3) of the CGST/WBGST Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules) has since been substituted with effect from 26th December, 2022. It would appear from the substituted rule that the procedure for filing certified copy in respect of the decisions which are available on the common portal has since been dispensed with. Only in respect of the matter where orders are not uploaded on the common portal, the certified copies of such orders are to be filed. The procedure for certifying the copy of the order impugned in an appeal has also been simplified to a great extent to enable the appellant to submit self- certified copy of such decision.
Admittedly, the order impugned in the instant case, being the refund rejection order dated 22nd June, 2022 was available on the portal. Although, the provisions of Rule 108(3) of the said Rules has been substituted with effect from 26th December, 2022, however, having regard to the fact that the appeal was filed within the time though the certified copy thereof was submitted
3 belatedly in respect of an appeal where the order was already available on the common portal, I am of the view that the appeal should be construed to have been filed in time.
In view thereof, by condoning the delay, if any, I direct
the appeal should be heard on merits.
With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.