Gujarat State Petronet Limited vs. Union Of INDIA Through Secretary

Held

The Court held that the appeal filed by the petitioner was not time-barred. The Court reasoned that under Rule 108 of the CGST Rules, an appeal is required to be filed electronically, and the limitation period for filing the appeal commences only when the order is uploaded on the GST portal. Since there was no notification for manual filing and the order was not uploaded, the petitioner could not file the appeal within the prescribed period. The Court found the revenue's contention that uploading and filing are separate processes to be untenable, as these activities are intertwined. The Court noted that the petitioner had made all reasonable efforts to file the appeal properly and could not be penalized for the technical issues or the lack of clarity in the new law. Therefore, the appellate authority was not justified in rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation. The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated May 1, 2019, condoned the delay in filing the appeal manually, and remanded the matter back to the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh on merits after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Facts

Gujarat State Petronet Limited (the petitioner) filed a refund application on March 21, 2018, for IGST amounting to Rs. 2,66,55,266/- paid on supplies to a Special Economic Zone (SEZ). The adjudicating authority (respondent no. 4) issued a deficiency memo on April 11, 2018, requesting endorsed invoices for supplies to ONGC Petro Additions Limited (OPAL). Despite requests, the SEZ authority delayed endorsing invoices for Rs. 41,59,625/-. A show cause notice was issued on July 5, 2018, for rejecting this amount. The adjudicating authority sanctioned a refund of Rs. 2,24,95,641/- on August 2, 2019, holding Rs. 41,59,625/- inadmissible due to non-submission of endorsed invoices. The petitioner received endorsed invoices on August 2, 2018, but the adjudicating authority refused to consider them as the refund order was already signed. After facing technical issues and unsuccessful attempts to file a fresh application, the petitioner filed a manual appeal on February 27, 2019, before the appellate authority (respondent no. 3). The appeal was rejected on May 1, 2019, for being time-barred.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed manually by the petitioner against the refund order dated August 2, 2018, was time-barred, in violation of Section 107 of the CGST Act read with Rule 108 of the CGST Rules? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the appeal was not time-barred because the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, read with Rule 108 of the CGST Rules, commences only when the order is uploaded on the GST portal. Since the order was not uploaded, the petitioner could not file the appeal electronically as mandated. The petitioner contended that they made all efforts to file the appeal properly and could not be penalized for the technical issues or lack of clarity in the new law. They also argued that the manual filing was necessitated by the inability to file electronically and that the appellate authority was not justified in rejecting the appeal on limitation grounds, thereby depriving them of a decision on merits. Revenue's contention: The revenue contended that the uploading of the order and the filing of the appeal are distinct processes, and the petitioner's failure to file the appeal within the prescribed period, even if manually, rendered it time-barred. The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's arguments regarding the manual filing of the appeal.