Procedural Technicality Shouldn't Block IGST Refund Appeal: Hard Copy Delay Deemed Insignificant for Timely Ocean Freight Claim

HC directed first respondent to process petitioner's appeal for IGST refund on ocean freight, despite delayed submission of hard copy. Relying on precedent cases, the court held procedural non-compliance was a technical defect. The appeal, filed within time limit, must be processed within one month, without rejection based on physical document delay.

---

---

Issues:
- Direction sought for accepting the appeal with a specific filing date
- Compliance with procedural requirement for filing hard copy of impugned order
- Precedents on processing appeals filed within time limit

Analysis:
1. The petitioner in this case sought a direction for the first respondent to accept the appeal with the filing date as 18.06.2021. The refund rejection order related to a claim for refund of IGST on ocean freight. The petitioner was required to file a hard copy of the impugned order within seven days of presenting the appeal, as per Rule 108(3) of the applicable GST Rules. However, this requirement was not met until 02.02.2024.

2. The petitioner's counsel relied on a judgment in M/s.PKV Agencies v. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST) (Appeals), Vellore, to argue that Rule 108(3) is a procedural requirement and the appeal should be processed if filed within time. It was emphasized that the impugned order was available with the appellate authority, and the issue of refund of IGST on ocean freight had been addressed by various High Courts, including the present one.

3. The Government Advocate for the respondents acknowledged that the appeal was not processed due to the petitioner's failure to submit the physical copy of the impugned order. However, the Court referred to the judgment in M/s.Atlas PVC Pipes Ltd. v. State of Odisha, where it was held that the non-production of the hard copy of the impugned order was a technical defect. Since the appeal was filed within the prescribed time limit, following the precedent, the Court directed the first respondent to process the appeal without rejecting it based on the delay in filing the physical copy.

4. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of by instructing the first respondent to process the appeal if it is otherwise in order, within one month of receiving a copy of the Court's order. No costs were awarded in this matter.

---