Global Dried Flowers vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Held

The Court held that in terms of Rule 108(3) of the said Rules, the date of issuance of the provisional acknowledgement is to be considered the date of filing of the appeal. The Court noted that the provisional acknowledgement in this case was issued on May 9, 2023. While there was a marginal delay of one day in preferring the appeal, the Court found this delay to be entirely marginal and ought to have been condoned by the appellate authority. Considering the peculiar facts and the fact that the Appellate Tribunal has not yet been constituted, the Court was of the view that the appellate authority should have condoned the delay. Consequently, the Court set aside the order dated March 26, 2024, and remanded the matter back to the appellate authority for reconsideration of the appeal on merits. The appellate authority was directed to dispose of the appeal on merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six weeks from the date of communication of the order.

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 February 9, 2023, for the tax period March 1, 2022, to March 31, 2022. The petitioner filed an appeal on May 9, 2023. Subsequently, they were asked to submit a physical copy of the appeal, which was done on October 5, 2023. The appellate authority treated the latter date as the filing date, deeming the appeal time-barred, relying on un-amended Rule 108(3). The petitioner argued this was perverse, as a provisional acknowledgement was issued on May 9, 2023, which should be considered the filing date. The respondent acknowledged the provisional acknowledgement was issued within the prescribed time.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority erred in treating the date of submission of the physical copy of the appeal (October 5, 2023) as the date of filing, instead of the date of the provisional acknowledgement (May 9, 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 Rule 108(3) and failed to consider the provisional acknowledgement issued on May 9, 2023, as the date of filing. They argued that this provisional acknowledgement, issued within the prescribed time, should have been treated as the effective filing date. Revenue's arguments: The respondent acknowledged that a provisional acknowledgement was issued and that it was issued within the time prescribed for filing the appeal.