Naveen Oil Carrier PVT. LTD. vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Revenue, Bureau Of Investigation (North Bengal)Alipurduar Zone And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the appellate authority's order rejecting the appeals could not be sustained. While acknowledging that the amendment to Rule 108 was introduced after the appeals were filed, the Court noted that the impugned order of the appellate authority was passed after the amendment came into effect. The Court found that the petitioner was unable to file appeals electronically because the orders were not uploaded to their portal, and in the absence of these orders, they were prevented from electronic filing. Therefore, the appellate authority ought to have considered this subsequent development and the fact that the petitioner was unable to file electronically. The Court found the appellate authority's order to be mechanical. The Court affirmed the petitioner's right to maintain the appeals. Consequently, the order of the appellate authority was set aside, the appeals were restored, and the matter was remanded back to the appellate authority for disposal on merits within eight weeks, subject to the petitioner complying with other formalities.

Facts

The petitioner, Naveen Oil Carrier Pvt. Ltd., filed five appeals before the appellate authority against orders dated 23rd/24th February, 2023, issued under Section 129(3) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. These appeals were filed manually because the orders and demands in Form GST DRC 07 were not uploaded on the petitioner's portal. The appellate authority, by an order dated 9th October, 2023, rejected these appeals, relying on Rule 108 of the WBGST/CGST Rules, 2017, and holding them to be barred by limitation. The petitioner contends that the appeals should not have been rejected on other grounds once it was found they were not in order due to manual filing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority erred in rejecting the petitioner's appeals as barred by limitation, despite the orders under challenge not being uploaded on the petitioner's portal, thereby preventing electronic filing? 2. Whether the benefit of the amendment to Rule 108 of the WBGST/CGST Rules, 2017, which permits manual filing when electronic filing is not possible due to non-availability of documents, should be extended to the petitioner? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that once the appellate authority found the appeals were not in order due to manual filing, they should not have been rejected on other grounds. They relied on the amended Rule 108, effective from 4th August, 2023, which allows manual appeals if electronic filing is impossible due to non-availability of documents. The petitioner claimed to fall under this scenario and sought the benefit of the amendment, especially given the Appellate Tribunal's non-constitution. The revenue or State did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.