TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Online CGST Appeal Filing Timelines Validated Through Retrospective Rule 108(3) Amendment, Delay Condoned by Judicial Interpretation</h1> <h3>M/s. Hitachi Energy India Limited Versus State of Karnataka, The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Bangalore, Joint Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes (Appeals 6), Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes Bangalore</h3> HC ruled on CGST appeal filing timelines, finding the online filing date valid under the retrospectively amended Rule 108(3). The court condoned the delay ... Time limitation - condonation of delay in filing appeal - appeal was filed beyond time and the delay - condonable delay or not - only ground which apparently has been taken note of, for rejecting the appeal was the date of physical re-filing of the appeal - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the appeal was filed in online mode on 03.06.2022 though physical filing of the order impugned was made on 25.01.2023. Under Rule 108 (3) of CGST Rules, 2017, prior to its substitution provided that the date of filing of appeal would be the date when the certified copy of the decision or order is submitted where such order was submitted after seven days from the date of filing Form GST APL-01. The change effected by virtue of Rule 108 (3) is that the date of appeal would be the date of issuance of acknowledgment (which was on 03.06.2022 at Annexure-'G') and such change is in contradistinction to the earlier requirement which provided that the date of appeal would be the date of furnishing of certified copy of the order, if submitted after seven days. If that were to be so, the date of physical filing of the certified copy ought not to have been taken note of - Though appeal was filed prior to substitution of Rule 108 (3), in the present case, the matter having been decided after the amendment by way of substitution, the amended Rule wherein Rule 108 (3) ought to be taken note of. Further, it must be noticed that the substitution of sub-rule (3) ought to date back from the date when the Rule was introduced. The date of filing that was to be taken note of is 03.06.2022 which is the date of acknowledgement of filing of the appeal and not 25.01.2023 which was the date of physical filing of the impugned order which was wrongly taken by the Appellate Authority. Accordingly, as the delay requires to be condoned and there being no ambiguity in the position of law, the delay is condoned and the matter is remitted for consideration afresh. The petition is disposed off. Issues:1. Timeliness of filing the appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act.2. Interpretation of Rule 108(3) of the CGST Rules regarding the date of filing an appeal.3. Retrospective application of the substituted Rule 108(3) for clarification.Analysis:1. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act challenging the rejection of a refund order. The appeal was dismissed as it was filed beyond the stipulated three-month period. The main contention was the date of physical re-filing of the appeal, which was later than the online filing date. The relevant provision mandates filing within three months from the date of communication of the decision or order.2. The dispute centered around Rule 108(3) of the CGST Rules, which determined the date of filing an appeal. The rule, prior to amendment, required submission of a certified copy of the order within seven days for the appeal date to be the filing date. However, the rule was later substituted to clarify that the date of appeal would be the date of acknowledgment issuance. The court held that the substituted rule aimed to provide clarity and should have retrospective effect, thus making the online filing date relevant.3. The court referred to the minutes of the 48th GST Council meeting, which recommended amending Rule 108(3) for clarity regarding the submission of certified copies. The retrospective application of the substituted rule was crucial for ensuring consistency and adherence to the amended provisions. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order, condoned the delay, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration based on the clarified rule.In conclusion, the judgment emphasized the importance of interpreting and applying statutory provisions in line with legislative intent and subsequent amendments for effective administration of tax laws. The retrospective application of amended rules was essential for maintaining consistency and ensuring fair treatment of taxpayers in appeal proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
