Pramod Kumar Tomar (Prop.M/S Paramount Steel) vs. Assistant Commissioner Mundka Division Delhi West, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.

Facts

The petitioner, Pramod Kumar Tomar, proprietor of M/s Paramount Steel, challenged an order dated 18.10.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Mundka Division, Delhi West. This order dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an Order-in-Original dated 12.08.2022, which had rejected his refund claim. The dismissal was solely on the grounds of limitation. The Appellate Authority held that the appeal was time-barred because the Order-in-Original was not uploaded with the online appeal filed on 12.11.2022, and the physical copy was submitted much later, on 29.08.2023. The petitioner contended that the Order-in-Original was indeed uploaded online on 12.11.2022, making the appeal within time as per Rule 108(3) of the CGST Rules. The respondents initially disputed this but later conceded, attributing the discrepancy to a technical glitch, while also suggesting the appeal was delayed by one day.

Held

The Court held that the appeal filed by the petitioner was within the period of limitation. The Appellate Authority erred in holding the appeal to be time-barred. The Court noted that in terms of Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, an appeal must be filed within three months from the date the order is communicated. The Order-in-Original was dated 12.08.2022. Even assuming this was the date of communication, Section 12(1) and 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, mandate the exclusion of the day from which the period is to be reckoned and the day the judgment was pronounced. Therefore, the three-month period commenced from 13.08.2022, making the last date for filing the appeal 12.11.2022. The Court found it an admitted position that the appeal was filed online on 12.11.2022, along with the copy of the order. Consequently, the impugned order dated 18.10.2023 was set aside, the appeal was restored to the Appellate Authority's record, and the Appellate Authority was directed to decide the appeal on merits. The Court explicitly stated it was not examining the merits of the refund claim, including the disputed amounts of Rs. 6,45,000/- and Rs. 74,400/-, reserving these contentions for the Appellate Authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority was within the prescribed period of limitation under Section 107(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Rule 108(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, considering the date of online filing and the upload of the Order-in-Original. 2. Whether the provisions of Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963, particularly the exclusion of the day of pronouncement of the order and the time requisite for obtaining a copy, are applicable in computing the period of limitation for filing an appeal under the GST Act. Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the Order-in-Original was uploaded along with the online appeal on 12.11.2022. Therefore, in terms of Rule 108(3) of the Rules, the appeal should be deemed filed on 12.11.2022, which was within the limitation period. The petitioner also relied on Section 12 of the Limitation Act for exclusion of time. Respondents' contentions: Initially, the respondents disputed that the Order-in-Original was uploaded. Later, they conceded to the upload due to a technical glitch, but contended that the appeal was delayed by one day. They did not explicitly argue against the applicability of Section 12 of the Limitation Act.