M/S Star Health And Allied Insurance Company Limited vs. State Of Haryana And Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Star Health and Allied Insurance Company Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Appeal passed by respondent No.2. The appeals were rejected by the Appellate Authority on the grounds of limitation. The appeals were filed electronically on 27.05.2022 and manually on 10.06.2022. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeals without considering them on merits, citing Rule 108(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, which requires submission of a self-certified copy of the order within 7 days if the order appealed against is not filed with the appeal. The petitioner argued that the appeals were filed within the period of limitation if calculated from the date of electronic filing.
Held
The Court held that the Order-in-Appeal was not sustainable as the appeals were dismissed on technicalities. The Court noted that Rule 108(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, had been modified to accept electronic filing, and the date of provisional acknowledgement would be considered the date of filing. The Court observed that the procedure had been modified to ensure that rules of procedure serve justice. The appeals were dismissed on the ground of limitation despite apparently being filed within the period of limitation if calculated from the date of electronic filing. Therefore, the Court set aside the Order-in-Appeal and directed the Appellate Authority to decide the appeals on merits. The writ petition was allowed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeals filed by the petitioner were rightly dismissed on the ground of limitation under Rule 108(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, considering the electronic and manual filing dates and the requirement of submitting a self-certified copy of the order appealed against? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the appeals were filed within the period of limitation, considering the date of electronic filing. They relied on the judgment in CWP-12128-2020, L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and others, where a co-ordinate Bench directed the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on merits despite a photocopy being attached instead of a certified copy. They also referred to CWP-3602-2023, M/s. Suman Industries vs. State of Haryana and others, which noted amendments to the rules doing away with the requirement of a certified copy and directing appeals to be decided on merits. Revenue's contentions: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue or State regarding the limitation issue.
Sections Cited
Rule 108(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH 120 2024:PHHC:010336-DB CWP-1752-2024 Date of Decision: 25.01.2024 M/s. Star Health and Allied Insurance Company Ltd. .....Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Advocate, for the petitioner (appearing through video conferencing). Mr. Rishabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing Counsel, for respondent Nos.2 to 4. G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral)
The petitioner, in the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the Order-in-Appeal in Appeal Nos.85- 87/2022-23 dated 26.04.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 whereby the said three appeals were rejected on the ground of limitation keeping in view the fact that the appeals were filed electronically on 27.05.2022 but manually on 10.06.2022 and, therefore, Rule 108(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 prescribing that on the date of uploading of the order, a final acknowledgement would be issued though the date of provisional acknowledgement would be considered as the date of filing of the appeal, provided where the decision or order appealed against is not filed with the appeal, the appellant shall submit a self certified copy of the order within 7 days. It is in such circumstances, the appeals have not been taken up on merits and have been dismissed.
Notice of motion.
Mr. Rishabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4. Shivani Gupta 2024.02.06 12:41
CWP-1752-2024 -2- 2024:PHHC:010336-DB
It has been brought to our notice that in CWP-12128-2020, L.G. 26.08.2020, the co-ordinate Bench as such, on the concession given, had directed the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on merits rather than dismissing it on the ground that the certified copy had not been appended but only a photocopy had been attached. Reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by another co-ordinate Bench in CWP-3602-2023, M/s. Suman P-17) wherein, while keeping in view the amendment made as per the notification dated 25.01.2023 w.e.f. 26.12.2022 and the fact that the provision of certified copy of the decision or the order appealed has been done away though subsequently the relief had been granted by setting aside the order and a direction had been given to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on merits.
Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that once the procedure as such has also been modified to the extent that Rule 108(3) provides that where the decision or order appealed against has not been uploaded on a common portal and the final acknowledgement indicating appeal number is to be issued by the Appellate Authority, the date of issuing of the provisional acknowledgement shall be considered as date of filing of the appeal. Thus, the mode of accepting the electronic filing has been made. The same modification has been done for the purposes of ensuring that the rules of procedure are handmaids of justice. Therefore, the appeal having been dismissed on the ground of technicalities, we feel that the order is not sustainable since apparently the appeal was filed within the period of limitation, if calculated from the date of electronic filing. Shivani Gupta 2024.02.06 12:41
CWP-1752-2024 -3- 2024:PHHC:010336-DB
Accordingly, the Order-in-Appeal in Appeal Nos.85-87/2022-23 dated 26.04.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 is set aside with directions to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on merits. Writ petition stands allowed accordingly.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE 25.01.2024 (LAPITA BANERJI) shivani JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking Yes Whether reportable No Shivani Gupta 2024.02.06 12:41
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.