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 court held that the amendment notified on 26.12.2022 to Rule 108(3) was clarificatory in nature and had retrospective effect from 26.12.2022, citing similar rulings by Gujarat and Karnataka HCs. Since the amendment was already in force when the impugned order was passed, the rejection based on delay was unjustified. The matter was remitted back to the appellate authority for fresh consideration on merits.

---

---

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.

---