Appeal cannot be dismissed solely for non-filing of certified copy under Rule 108 UPGST/CGST Rules

The Allahabad HC allowed a petition challenging rejection of an appeal on limitation grounds. The lower authority had dismissed the appeal for non-filing of self-attested copy within the time prescribed under Rule 108 of UPGST/CGST Rules. Following precedent in Visible Alpha Solutions case, the HC held that appeals cannot be dismissed solely for non-filing of certified copy within limitation period. The impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the authority for fresh consideration within two months, requiring a reasoned decision after hearing all stakeholders.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order dated 27.03.2024 for contravention of Rule 108 of UPGST/CGST Rule.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order dated 27.03.2024, contending that the appeal dismissal was due to a self-attested copy not being provided within the stipulated time as per Rule 108 of UPGST/CGST Rule. The petitioner argued that the appeal, filed on 11.01.2023 along with a certified copy of the order dated 27.03.2024, was wrongly rejected on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner relied on Notification No.26 of 2022 and emphasized that the order and appeal were uploaded, thus self-certified copy submission was not necessary. The petitioner cited a judgment in a similar case to support the argument (Visible Alpha Solutions India Private Limited Vs. Commissioner, CGST Appeals, NOIDA and Another - Writ Tax No. 83 of 2024).

The respondent, represented by the Additional Chief Standing Counsel, supported the impugned order, alleging a violation of Section 108 of CGST/UPGST Act, justifying the dismissal of the appeal.

The court examined the record and found that the appeal was dismissed as time-barred due to non-compliance with Rule 108 of CGST/UPGST Act regarding the submission of a self-certified copy within the prescribed period. The court noted that a similar issue had been addressed in the case of Visible Alpha Solutions India Private Limited, where it was held that an appeal cannot be dismissed solely for the non-filing of a certified copy of the order when the appeal is filed electronically and uploaded on the common portal.

The court quashed the impugned order dated October 18, 2023, directing the appellate authority to re-hear the appeals filed by the petitioner and issue a reasoned order on merits within three months. The court referred to subsequent modifications to the order, citing judgments from other High Courts emphasizing that non-submission of a certified copy should be considered a technical defect and not a ground for dismissal, especially when the appeal is filed electronically within the prescribed time frame.

Based on the legal principles and precedents cited, the court ruled that the impugned order could not be upheld and quashed it, remanding the matter to the authority concerned for a fresh decision within two months from the production of a certified copy of the order.

---