Requirement for certified copies under GGST Rule 108 challenged; uploaded orders suffice, appellate rejection quashed and matter remanded for de novo hearing.

Interpretation of the requirement for submission of certified copies under Rule 108 of the GGST Rules: the court held that when an appealed order is uploaded to and accessible on the common portal, no certified copy is required to test authenticity, and insistence on such certification is procedurally regressive; consequence: the impugned appellate rejection for non-submission was quashed. The court further treated a clarificatory amendment effective 26.12.2022 as retrospectively applicable, resulting in remand for a fresh de novo hearing on merits after opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal dismissal due to failure to submit certified copy of order, interpretation of Rule 108 of GGST Rules, 2017, amendment to Rule 108 on 26.12.2022, requirement of self-certified copies, applicability of amendment retrospectively, quashing of impugned order, remand for fresh decision by the appellate authority.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed an appeal against an order before the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, which was dismissed for not submitting a certified copy of the order as required by Rule 108 (3) of the GGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner challenged this dismissal, citing that the rule was amended on 26.12.2022 to only require self-certified copies in cases where the order is not uploaded on the common portal. The petitioner sought the quashing of the dismissal order and restoration of the appeal for hearing on merits. The Court noted the amendment to Rule 108, emphasizing that when the appealed order is available on the common portal, there is no need for a certified copy, as it can be viewed directly. The Court criticized the insistence on certified copies in such cases as regressive and unnecessary in the digital age.

The Court referred to a previous case to establish that the amendment to Rule 108 was clarificatory and applicable retrospectively. Therefore, the impugned order rejecting the appeal was deemed invalid. Consequently, the Court quashed the dismissal order and remanded the matter to the appellate authority for a fresh decision on merits, with a directive to complete the process within 12 weeks. It was clarified that the Court did not delve into the merits of the case, leaving it to be decided by the appellate authority in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the petition, setting aside the dismissal order and instructing a fresh decision by the appellate authority. The judgment highlighted the importance of adapting legal procedures to modern technological capabilities and clarified the retrospective applicability of the amended rule.

---