The Braithwaite Ram And Jessop Construction Company Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, The Braithwaite Ram and Jessop Construction Company Limited, filed a writ petition challenging Rule 108 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Rules, 2017, as it originally existed. This rule required the filing of a certified copy of the impugned order within seven days of filing an appeal. Failure to do so meant the appeal was deemed instituted on the date the certified copy was filed, thereby imposing the limitation period applicable from that later date. The appellate order under challenge (Annexure-4) rejected the petitioner's appeal on the ground of late production of the certified copy, which was filed even beyond the period allowed for delay condonation after the initial appeal filing period.
Held
The Court held that the original Rule 108 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Rules, 2017, which required the filing of a certified copy of the impugned order within seven days of filing an appeal, has since been amended. The amended rule no longer insists on a certified copy; instead, a self-attested copy is sufficient if the order is not uploaded on the portal. In this case, as the order was uploaded on the portal, no attested copy was even required. Consequently, the appellate order rejecting the appeal on the ground of late filing of the certified copy was set aside. The appeal was restored to the file of the First Appellate Authority for consideration on merits, with a direction for the appellant to be issued a notice and given an opportunity of hearing before a speaking order is passed. The Court explicitly stated that it made no observation on the merits of the original order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the original Rule 108 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Rules, 2017, which mandated the filing of a certified copy of the impugned order within seven days of filing an appeal, and deemed the appeal instituted on the date of filing such certified copy if filed later, was legally tenable. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner challenged the original Rule 108, arguing that it imposed an undue procedural burden and effectively extended the limitation period for filing an appeal based on the date of filing the certified copy. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific argument from the revenue or state regarding the validity of the original Rule 108. However, the appellate authority acted based on this rule.
Sections Cited
Rule 108
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 14-05-2024 The petitioner was aggrieved with Rule 108 as it existed originally in the Central Goods & Services Tax Rules, 2/3 2017. As per rule, after filing of an appeal, a certified copy of the impugned order had to be filed within seven days of the filing of an appeal. If it is filed after seven days, then the appeal was deemed to have been instituted only on the date of filing of certified copy. Thus, bringing the rigor of limitation, as applicable; to that date on which the certified copy was filed. There has been an amendment to the rules and hence the challenge in the writ petition to the said rule, does not survive. As of now, there is no insistence for a certified copy.
The appellate order in this case, which is produced at Annexure-4 of the memorandum, rejected the appeal on the ground of late production of certified copy. The certified copy was produced even beyond the one month period in which a delay condonation application could have been filed, after the three month period initially provided for instituting a proper appeal.
As the provision exists now, there should be a self- attested copy of the impugned order, if the order is not uploaded in the portal. In the present case, the order is uploaded in the portal, hence, there is no requirement for even an attested copy.
In the circumstance of the amendment made, which removed the condition of filing a certified copy, we are of the 3/3 opinion that Annexure-4 has to be set aside. The appeal will stand restored with the First Appellate Authority, which will be considered on merits. The appellant would be issued with a notice and given an opportunity of hearing before disposal of the appeal by a speaking order.
We make it clear that we have not made any observation about the merits of the order.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
Sujit/- (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) ( Harish Kumar, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 15.05.2024 Transmission Date
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.