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 in this case, a provisional acknowledgement was issued on June 6, 2023, within the time prescribed, and the order impugned (dated March 22/24, 2023) was duly uploaded. Therefore, it was apparent that there was no delay in filing the appeal. 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 expeditiously, 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 March 22/23, 2023, for the tax period May 2022. An appeal was electronically filed on June 6, 2023. Subsequently, the petitioner was asked to submit a physical copy, which was done on October 5, 2023. The appellate authority treated October 5, 2023, as the date of filing, deeming the appeal time-barred, relying on un-amended provisions of Rule 108(3). The petitioner argued this was perverse, especially as a provisional acknowledgement was issued on June 6, 2023, in terms of Rule 108(3). Due to the non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal, the writ petition was filed.

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 (June 6, 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). They argued that the provisional acknowledgement issued on June 6, 2023, should be considered the date of filing as per the said rule, and therefore, the appeal was filed within the prescribed time limit. They sought a remand to the appellate authority or a hearing on merits. Revenue's Arguments: The respondent acknowledged that a provisional acknowledgement was issued on filing the appeal and that it was issued within the time prescribed for filing the appeal.