Global Dried Flowers vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Held

The Court held that in terms of Rule 108(3) of the Central Goods and Services Rules, 2017, the date of issuance of the provisional acknowledgement is to be considered the date of filing of the appeal, unless the order appealed against was not uploaded on the common portal. The Court noted that a provisional acknowledgement was issued for the appeal filed on June 7, 2023, and the order impugned before the appellate authority was dated March 24, 2023. Therefore, there was no delay in filing the appeal, especially considering the provisions of Rule 108(3). The Court set aside the order dated March 24, 2024, and remanded the matter back to the appellate authority for reconsideration on merits. The appellate authority was directed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously, preferably within six weeks.

Facts

The petitioner, Global Dried Flowers, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated March 26, 2024, passed under Section 107 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017. The petitioner was aggrieved by a refund rejection order dated March 24, 2023, for the tax period June 2022. An appeal was electronically filed on June 7, 2023. Subsequently, the petitioner was asked to submit a physical copy, which was done on October 5, 2023. The appellate authority treated the physical submission date as the filing date, deeming the appeal time-barred, despite a provisional acknowledgement being issued for the June 7, 2023 electronic filing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority erred in law by treating the date of physical submission of the appeal (October 5, 2023) as the date of filing, instead of the date of the provisional acknowledgement issued upon electronic filing (June 7, 2023), thereby deeming the appeal time-barred, contrary to Rule 108(3) of the Central Goods and Services Rules, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the appellate authority's decision was perverse as it relied on un-amended provisions of Rule 108(3) and failed to consider the provisional acknowledgement as the date of filing. They argued that the electronic filing on June 7, 2023, was within the prescribed time, and the subsequent requirement for a physical copy did not invalidate this initial filing date. The petitioner sought a remand or a hearing on merits. Revenue's arguments: The respondent acknowledged that a provisional acknowledgement was issued upon filing the appeal and that it was issued within the time prescribed for filing.