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 as barred by limitation could not be sustained. While acknowledging that the amendment to Rule 108, which permits manual filing when electronic filing is not possible, was introduced after the appeals were filed, the Court noted that this amendment was in effect when the appellate authority passed its impugned order. The Court found that the petitioner was indeed prevented from filing appeals electronically as the orders were not uploaded on their portal. Therefore, the appellate authority ought to have considered this subsequent development and the fact that the petitioner was unable to file electronically. The Court characterized the appellate authority's order as mechanical. The Court affirmed that the petitioner has a 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., is aggrieved by orders dated 23rd/24th February, 2023, issued under Section 129(3) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner filed five appeals manually before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Act because the orders and demands in Form GST DRC 07 were not uploaded on their portal. The appellate authority, by an order dated 9th October, 2023, rejected these appeals, relying on Rule 108 of the WBGST/CGST Rules, 2017, as it stood at the time of filing, holding them to be barred by limitation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority erred in rejecting the appeals as barred by limitation, when the petitioner was prevented from filing them electronically due to the non-availability of the orders on their portal? 2. Whether the petitioner should be granted the benefit of the amendment to Rule 108 of the WBGST/CGST Rules, 2017, which permits manual filing of appeals when electronic filing is not possible due to non-availability of documents, even though the amendment was made after the appeals were filed? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that once the appellate authority found the appeals to be not in order due to manual filing, they should not have been rejected on other grounds. They argued that the amendment to Rule 108, effective from 4th August, 2023, allows manual filing if electronic filing is impossible, a situation they fall under. They further submitted that this benefit should be extended to them, especially given the Appellate Tribunal is yet to be constituted. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records that Mr. Siddiqui, learned Additional Government Pleader, entered appearance on behalf of the respondents, but does not record any specific arguments made by the State.