2020 (9) TMI 427 - HC - GST

Court Quashes Appeal Rejection, Condoned Delay, Emphasizes Clarity in Provisions

The court quashed the order rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation, condoned the delay in manual filing, and remanded the matter for fresh ... Limitation for filing appeal under section 107 of the CGST Act - electronic filing requirement under Rule 108 and FORM GST APL-01 - commencement of limitation upon communication by uploading the order on the GST portal - absence of notified alternative (manual) mode for filing appeals - condonation of delay where appellant prevented by sufficient cause including technical failures of governmental portalsLimitation for filing appeal under section 107 of the CGST Act - electronic filing requirement under Rule 108 and FORM GST APL-01 - commencement of limitation upon communication by uploading the order on the GST portal - absence of notified alternative (manual) mode for filing appeals - condonation of delay where appellant prevented by sufficient cause including technical failures of governmental portals - Appellate authority's rejection of the appeal as time-barred was not justified where the adjudicating authority's order had not been uploaded on the GST portal and electronic filing was the prescribed mode. - HELD THAT: - The statutory scheme requires appeals to be filed in the electronic FORM GST APL-01 and treats an appeal as filed only when final acknowledgement (appeal number) is issued (Rule 108). There was no notification providing for a manual mode of filing. Consequently, the limitation period under section 107 runs from the date the decision or order is communicated to the person, which in the present scheme effectively requires upload of the adjudicating authority's order on the GST portal so that the appellant can file electronically. The petitioner did not receive the electronic copy nor could it file electronically because the order was not uploaded and repeated attempts, including use of GST Seva Kendras and lodging grievances, remained unavailing. Under these peculiar factual circumstances, the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the statutory period and ought not to be penalised for technical failures or absence of notified alternative procedure. The appellate authority therefore erred in rejecting the appeal as time-barred instead of condoning the delay and considering the appeal on merits. The court quashed the impugned order, condoned the delay and remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority for fresh de novo disposal after affording opportunity of hearing. [Paras 8, 9, 10]Impugned order rejecting the appeal as time-barred quashed; delay in manual filing condoned and matter remanded to the Appellate Authority to decide afresh on merits after hearing the petitioner.Final Conclusion: Petition allowed. The order dated 1st May, 2019 rejecting the appeal as time-barred is quashed; delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh de novo adjudication after giving the petitioner adequate opportunity of hearing. Issues Involved:1. Whether the appellate authority was justified in rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation.2. Whether the appeal could be filed manually due to non-availability of the electronic order.3. The impact of technical and procedural issues on the filing of the appeal.Detailed Analysis:1. Justification of Rejection on the Ground of Limitation:The petitioner filed an appeal under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 01.05.2019 passed by the respondent no.3, which rejected the appeal on the ground of being beyond the limitation period. The petitioner contended that the limitation period prescribed under section 107 of the CGST Act would start only from the date of communication of the order in electronic form. The court noted that the appeal is to be filed electronically as per the CGST Act and CGST Rules, and the limitation period would start only when the order is uploaded on the GST portal. The court found that there was no failure on part of the petitioner to file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation as the period of limitation did not start till the order was uploaded on the GST portal.2. Manual Filing of Appeal Due to Non-Availability of Electronic Order:The petitioner argued that they could not file the appeal electronically because the adjudicating authority's order was not uploaded on the GST portal. Despite this, the petitioner filed a manual copy of the appeal on 27th February, 2019. The court observed that the appeal is required to be filed in electronic mode only, and there was no notification issued for manual filing of an appeal. The court held that without the order being uploaded, the petitioner could not file the appeal electronically, and therefore, the manual filing was justified. The court emphasized that the petitioner should not be penalized for the lack of clarity in the provisions when the new law is enacted.3. Impact of Technical and Procedural Issues on Filing of the Appeal:The petitioner faced several technical issues and procedural hurdles in filing the appeal. The adjudicating authority did not upload the order on the GST portal, and the GST portal did not allow the filing of a refund application for the same month twice. The petitioner approached various authorities and lodged grievances on the GST portal, but the issues were not resolved. The court acknowledged these efforts and noted that the petitioner took all steps for proper filing of the appeal immediately after the issuance of the order. The court found that the appellate authority's rejection of the appeal on the ground of limitation was not justified, considering the technical and procedural issues faced by the petitioner.Conclusion:The court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 1st May, 2019, passed by respondent no.3, condoned the delay in filing the appeal manually, and remanded the matter back to the appellate authority to decide the same afresh on merits after giving an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The court emphasized that the petitioner should not be penalized for the lack of clarity in the provisions and the technical issues faced in filing the appeal.