Pinkesh Kumar Singh vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Pinkesh Kumar Singh, filed an appeal before the first Appellate Authority under the GST regime. The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on the grounds of non-production of a certified copy of the order being appealed against, and for failing to file it within the stipulated seven days as per Rule 108(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The petitioner is aggrieved by this dismissal and has approached the High Court through a writ petition. The tax period and the specific order under challenge are not explicitly stated, nor is the amount in dispute. The procedural history is that the appeal was filed, and subsequently dismissed by the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeal), Siwan, for non-compliance with procedural requirements.
Held
The Court held that dismissing an appeal solely for the non-production of a certified copy, when the order is uploaded on the common portal, is unduly harsh. The Court noted that orders are now auto-populated and uploaded on the portal, diminishing the necessity of a certified copy. The Court also considered the amendment to Rule 108(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, brought in by the Union of India on 26.12.2022, which specifically allows a self-attested copy of the decision or order to suffice if it is uploaded on the common portal. Finding this amendment to be clarificatory in nature, the Court opined that the appeal should be considered on its merits. The impugned order of dismissal was set aside on the technical ground, and the appeal was directed to be restored to the file of the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority was instructed to consider the issues raised on merits after issuing notice and providing an opportunity for a personal hearing to the petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that procedural rules should be interpreted in a manner that does not defeat substantive justice, especially when technological advancements (like portal uploads) render traditional requirements obsolete.
Key Issues
1. Whether the dismissal of an appeal by the Appellate Authority solely on the ground of non-production of a certified copy, when the order is available on the common portal, is a harsh and unsustainable action, particularly in light of amendments to the relevant rules? (Question of law) Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that dismissing an appeal on a technicality like the non-production of a certified copy is unduly harsh, especially when orders are now auto-populated and uploaded on the GST portal, rendering the certified copy less significant. They relied on the principle that procedural defects should not defeat substantive justice. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the learned Government Advocate, acknowledged the amendment to Rule 108(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, which allows for a self-attested copy if the decision or order is uploaded on the common portal. They also pointed out that the dismissal occurred after this amendment was brought into effect.
Sections Cited
Rule 108(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 05-05-2023 The petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal of a appeal by the first Appellate Authority on the ground of non- production of the certified copy. The dismissal was also on account of the Rules 108(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 providing for a certified copy to be filed within seven days from the date of institution of the appeal. The appellant failed to do that and hence the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal on that ground.
2/3 We have already held that it will be harsh on the assessee, if the Appellate Authority dismisses the appeal merely for reason of non-production of the certified copy though the rule provides for it. It is an accepted fact that now the orders are auto-populated and the Department uploads such orders on the portal. The necessity and requirement of the certified copy,
hence pales into insignificance. The learned Government Advocate also fairly puts forth an amendment dated 26.12.2022 brought in by the Union of India to the corresponding rules under the CGST Act, wherein sub-rule (3) of rule 108 has been substituted which specifically provides that if the decision or order appealed against is uploaded on the common portal, a self attested copy of the decision or order would suffice. The learned Government Advocate also points out that the present appeal was rejected after the Rule was amended. Finding that the amendment to the Rule is a clarificatory one, we are of the opinion that the appeal has to be considered on merits. The impugned order is set aside only on the technical reason as stated above and the appeal is directed to be restored to the files of the Appellate Authority who shall consider afresh the issues raised on merits after issuing notice 3/3 and affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands allowed.
aditya/sunil (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) ( Rajiv Roy, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 09.05.2023. 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.