M/S. Fortune Motors PVT. LTD. vs. The Joint Commissioner Of Central Tax And GST (Appeals-Ii)

Held

The Court agreed with the view taken by various High Courts that the amendment to Rule 108 of the CGST Rules, 2017, effective from December 26, 2022, is procedural in nature and therefore retrospective. The Court also concurred that rejecting an appeal on hyper-technical grounds cannot be countenanced, especially when the appeal was admittedly filed within time along with a downloaded copy of the assessment order from the department's portal. Consequently, the impugned appellate order dated July 19, 2024, was set aside. The appeal was restored to the file of the learned appellate authority, which was directed to decide the appeal on merits. The Court explicitly stated it was not expressing any view on the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Fortune Motors Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Appeal dated July 19, 2024, passed by the Joint Commissioner of Central Tax and GST (Appeals-II), Hyderabad. The appeal was dismissed primarily because the petitioner filed an online appeal on October 1, 2022, against an Order-in-Original dated June 30, 2022, without attaching a certified copy of the assessment order. A downloaded copy was initially filed, and the physical certified copy was only submitted on March 22, 2024. The appellate authority invoked Rule 108(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, to hold the appeal time-barred, as the certified copy was not filed within seven days of the appeal filing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's appeal by the appellate authority on the ground of not filing a physical certified copy of the assessment order within seven days of filing the appeal is legally sustainable, considering the amendment to Rule 108 of the CGST Rules, 2017, effective from December 26, 2022? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the appeal was filed along with a downloaded copy of the assessment order, which should be considered sufficient. They relied on judgments from various High Courts (Otsuka Pharmaceutical India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, Hitachi Energy India Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, RGS Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, Indian Potash Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner (ST), and Oaknorth (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India) which held that amendments to Rule 108 are procedural and retrospective, and rejection of appeals on hyper-technical grounds is unsustainable. Revenue's contention: The respondents supported the impugned order, submitting it was passed in consonance with Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 108 of the CGST Rules, 2017.