Jose Joseph VS Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax

The petitioner in these four writ petitions has brought forth identical grievances and sought similar reliefs due to the rejection of their appeals on the grounds of limitation. The core issue revolves around the refund claim for unutilized input tax credit during the months of July, August, September, and October of the year 2017. The assessing authority partially rejected the refund claim through orders dated March 29, 2019, and April 3, 2019, which are referred to as Ext.P1 in each of the petitions.

The petitioner’s primary contention stems from the alleged non-uploading of the Ext.P1 orders on the web portal of the respondents, preventing them from electronically filing appeals as mandated by current legal provisions. They argue that since the Ext.P1 orders were not made available on the web portal, they were unable to fulfill the electronic filing requirements.

The petitioner emphasizes that the lack of access to the Ext.P1 orders on the web portal deprived them of the opportunity to challenge the rejection of their refund claims in a timely manner, leading to their appeals being dismissed based on the grounds of limitation. This procedural barrier is viewed as a violation of their rights and a hindrance to their ability to seek redressal through the established legal channels.

Overall, the petitioner seeks relief from the rejection of their appeals, asserting that their inability to access the Ext.P1 orders electronically due to non-uploading on the web portal constitutes a substantial impediment to their pursuit of justice in the matter of refunding unutilized input tax credit.

On April 10, 2019, a situation unfolded where the petitioner opted to file appeals in physical form instead of electronically, resulting in a delay. The 2nd respondent, acting as the Appellate Authority, dismissed the appeals citing their expiration beyond the stipulated time frame and the absence of provisions for extending the deadline beyond 30 days. The petitioner argues that since the initial order was not uploaded on the web portal, they couldn’t have feasibly filed an electronic appeal within the prescribed timeframe. They reference a Gujarat High Court judgment to support their stance, suggesting that the Appellate Authority’s decision should be overturned, and the appeals should be assessed based on their merits. Respondents counter with the assertion that once the GST filing module is accessible on the GST portal, appeals must be filed electronically. However, to accommodate taxpayer convenience, manual appeals were also accepted and processed manually.

The case under discussion revolves around the timely filing of appeals under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (referred to as ‘the Act’). The respondents in the case argued that despite filing the appeal manually, there was a delay of more than 180 days. They cited sections 107(1) and 107(4) of the Act, which state that an appeal should be filed within three months from the date of communication of the impugned order. However, if there is a valid reason, the Appellate Authority can condone the delay for up to an additional one month.

The respondents contended that the appeals in question were filed after 153 days, well beyond the allowable extension of 30 days. During the proceedings, arguments were presented by Sri. A. Krishnan, representing the petitioner, Smt. Kaveri S. Thampi, representing respondents 1 and 2, and Sri. S. Manu, representing the 3rd respondent.

Section 107(1) of the Act mandates that appeals must be lodged within three months of the communication of the decision or order. However, section 107(4) allows for a one-month extension if sufficient cause for delay is demonstrated.

The appellant’s case revolves around the provisions outlined in Rule 108(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, which dictate that appeals must be presented using Form GST APL-01, accompanied by relevant documents, either electronically or through other means specified by the Commissioner. Both the appellant and the respondents acknowledge that the orders under dispute, dated 29.03.2019, were not uploaded on the web portal for the appellant to file their appeals electronically as required. There is no dispute that no alternative form of appeal has been notified by the Commissioner.

However, despite receiving a copy of the order on 10.04.2019, the appellant opted for manual filing of appeals only on 09.01.2020, resulting in a delay of 184 days. The Appellate Authority, citing precedent from the cases of Debabrata Mishra v. Commissioner of Central Tax and GST [2020 (36) G.S.T.L. 325 (Ori)] and Assistant Commissioner (CT), LTU, Kakinada & Ors. v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited [2020 (36) G.S.T.L. 305], dismissed the appeals on the grounds of being time-barred.

The crux of the appellant’s argument lies in the failure of the authorities to upload the orders in question on the web portal, thereby preventing timely electronic filing of appeals as mandated by the Rules. Despite this, the manual filing was delayed, leading to the dismissal of the appeals by the Appellate Authority.

The summary you provided outlines a legal argument concerning the timing of appeals in a case where orders were not uploaded to a web portal as required by law. The argument asserts that the period for filing an appeal begins only when the order is uploaded electronically, not when it is received physically. It suggests that the responsibility for filing appeals within the stipulated time frame lies with the authorities, not the petitioner, if orders are not uploaded as required. Furthermore, it emphasizes that if the prescribed mode of appeal is electronic, the time limit for filing such an appeal starts when the petitioner has the opportunity to do so electronically, not when they receive a physical copy of the order. Additionally, it dismisses the relevance of certain circulars cited by the authorities, asserting that they are merely internal communications and do not impact the case of the petitioner. Overall, the argument focuses on the procedural aspects of filing appeals and the responsibility of the authorities to ensure orders are uploaded in accordance with the law before expecting compliance from the petitioner.

The summarized text refers to a legal context involving the transition phase brought about by the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, highlighting technical glitches and challenges encountered during this period. The absence of a provision for manually filing appeals underlines the difficulties faced by petitioners attempting to navigate the new system. Despite subsequent attempts to file appeals manually, limitations persist due to technical imperfections in electronic filing systems. A reference is made to a judgment by the High Court of Gujarat in a similar case, where delays were condoned, allowing for manual filing of appeals. This suggests a need for flexibility and understanding in addressing challenges arising from the transition to electronic systems within the GST framework.

The court’s observations underscore the necessity for a fresh consideration of the appeal, particularly highlighting the procedural intricacies surrounding electronic filing mandated by relevant provisions. The court delineates that the appeal must be lodged exclusively in electronic format unless otherwise stipulated via official notification. No such notification permitting manual submission has been evidenced. Consequently, the temporal commencement of the appeal period hinges upon the adjudication order’s online publication rather than its physical delivery, a premise pivotal for appeal initiation. The court asserts that filing and uploading activities are interwoven, necessitating online order dissemination for electronic appeal submission, in line with statutory requisites. Notably, the absence of a manual filing provision precludes penalizing the petitioner for resorting to such means post-exhaustive efforts towards compliant filing. The court deems the rejection of the appeal based on purported time constraints untenable, absolving the petitioner of liability amidst legislative opacity. Therefore, the court urges a reconsideration of the appeal, mindful of these clarifications and the petitioner’s adherence to due diligence within the confines of prevailing legal provisions.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: