2024 (10) TMI 1446 - HC - GST

Amendment to Rule 108(3) CGST Act has retrospective effect, appeal rejection on delay grounds quashed

The HC quashed an appellate authority's order dated 11.03.2024 that rejected an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 on grounds of delay. The ... Time Limitation for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Perusal of amendment notified on 26.12.2022 would reveal that it is clarificatory in nature which came in to force w.e.f. 26.12.2022. Since amendment is clarificatory in nature, it would have a retrospective effect. The retrospective effect of Rule 108(3) of the Rules, 2017 has also been considered by the Gujrat High Court in Otsuka Pharmaceuticals India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2024 (4) TMI 282 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and also by the Karnataka High Court in the matter of M/s Hitachi Energy India Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others [2024 (7) TMI 53 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]. Since on the date of passing of the order dated 11.03.2024, the notification already came into force from 26.12.2022 and it is found that it is clarificatory in nature with retrospective effect on the provisions of Rule 108(3) of the Rules, 2017, the impugned order passed by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground of delay was not justified. The impugned order dated 11.03.2024 is accordingly quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to pass a afresh order on merits after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Petition allowed. Issues:1. Timeliness of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.2. Requirement of submitting a certified copy of the impugned order along with the appeal under Rule 108 of the CGST Rules, 2017.Analysis:Issue 1: The petitioner filed a petition against an order dismissing their appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 due to being filed after the limitation period. The petitioner argued that the appeal was filed within time through online mode, and the requirement for a hard copy of the impugned order was relaxed by a notification from the Ministry of Finance. The respondent contended that Rule 108 of the CGST Rules mandates the submission of a certified copy with the appeal, which the petitioner failed to provide. The court examined the relevant provisions and amendments, noting that a retrospective amendment clarified the submission requirements for appeals.Issue 2: Rule 108(3) of the CGST Rules mandates submitting a certified copy of the impugned order within seven days of filing the appeal. The court acknowledged the requirement but highlighted a clarificatory amendment effective from 26.12.2022, which allowed for the final acknowledgment to be issued even if the order was uploaded on the common portal. Citing precedents from the Gujarat High Court and the Karnataka High Court, the court held that the retrospective effect of the amendment applied in this case. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the appellate authority for a fresh decision on the merits after proper hearing.Conclusion:The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order and directing the appellate authority to reconsider the appeal on its merits within three months. The court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the case's merits, leaving it to be decided by the appellate authority in accordance with the law.