M/S Amalgam Steel And Power ,Through Its Director Dyapayan Dutta vs. The State Of Jharkhand, Through The Secretary, Department Of Finance

Held

The Court directed the appellate authority (4th respondent) to accept and dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner in manual/physical mode, without raising an objection that it was not filed online. The Court clarified that the issue of limitation, based on the alleged non-communication of the order dated September 23, 2019, is specifically kept open and must be examined by the appellate authority in the first instance. The Court acknowledged the dispute regarding the communication of the rejection order and stated that this contention must be decided first to determine if the appeal filed on June 20, 2024, is within the prescribed period of limitation. All contentions of both parties on the issue of limitation and, if that hurdle is crossed, on the merits of the matter were left open for the appellate authority to consider. The appellate authority was directed to dispose of the appeal within three months from the date of the order.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Amalgam Steel and Power, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court challenging the rejection of its refund application. The refund application was filed on May 21, 2019, and rejected on September 23, 2019. The petitioner contended that the rejection order was never uploaded on the GST portal nor communicated through any other prescribed mode. Consequently, the petitioner was unable to file an online appeal. The petitioner filed a manual/physical appeal on June 20, 2024, via speed post, raising the issue of non-communication of the rejection order and arguing that the appeal was within the limitation period if reckoned from the date of actual communication. The revenue, represented by the State, asserted that the rejection order was duly communicated to the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should direct the appellate authority to accept and dispose of the petitioner's appeal filed in manual/physical mode, notwithstanding the requirement for online filing under the CGST Rules? 2. Whether the order dated September 23, 2019, rejecting the petitioner's refund application was duly communicated to the petitioner? 3. If the order was not duly communicated, is the appeal filed on June 20, 2024, within the prescribed period of limitation? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that it was unable to file an online appeal because the rejection order was not uploaded on the portal and was not communicated through any other prescribed mode. Therefore, the appellate authority should be directed to accept the manually filed appeal and dispose of it on merits. The petitioner also contended that the appeal was filed within the limitation period if the date of communication is considered as the starting point, as the order was never communicated. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue contended that the order dated September 23, 2019, was duly communicated to the petitioner in accordance with the law.