TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Delhi HC rules online filing within limitation period valid even if physical certified copies submitted later</h1> <h3>Chegg India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union Of India & Ors.</h3> Delhi HC held that physical filing of certified copies is not mandatory when online filing is completed within the prescribed limitation period. The court ... Time limitation for filing appeal - whether the appeals were filed within the time period in terms of Rule 108 or not and if filed with a delay, does it merit condonation? - requirement of physical filing - merely a ‘procedural requirement’ or not. HELD THAT:- A perusal of the amended rule and the decisions make it clear that the condition to physically file the certified copy of the impugned decision/order is not mandatory. Therefore, an appeal filed prior to the amendment, where the certified copy was submitted with a delay, may be condoned if the online filing was completed within the prescribed limitation period. Ultimately, what is to be borne in mind is the fact that online filing was within limitation. There is no doubt being raised as to the genuineness of the copy of the order, which has been filed. Merely because the physical submission of the appeal and the order was much later, when the online filing was within the prescribed time, cannot deprive the Petitioner of hearing on merits. In most Courts and Tribunals, online filing and electronic filing is now prescribed mode and the Courts are moving towards technologically advance systems. It would be retrograde to opine that online filing, which was complete in all respects, including electronic copy of the order, is not valid filing. Petition allowed in part - appeals are remitted back to the Appellate Authority for being considered on merits. Issues Involved:1. Whether the appeals were filed within the limitation period.2. Whether the delay in physical filing of appeals can be condoned.3. The applicability of amendments to Rule 108 of the CGST Rules, 2017.4. The procedural requirement of filing a certified copy of the decision/order appealed against.Detailed Analysis:1. Limitation Period for Filing Appeals:The primary issue in the judgment was whether the appeals filed by the petitioner were within the prescribed limitation period under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner challenged the rejection of their appeals by the Additional Commissioner, CGST, on the grounds of being barred by limitation. The court examined Section 107(1) and Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, which allow a total period of three months plus an additional month for filing an appeal. The court noted that the online filing of appeals for OIA No. 105-115 and OIA No. 131 was within this statutory period, while the delay was in the physical filing.2. Condonation of Delay in Physical Filing:The court was tasked with determining whether the delay in the physical filing of appeals could be condoned. The petitioner argued that the requirement for physical filing was merely a procedural requirement, citing various judgments where delays were condoned on similar grounds. The court considered precedents from the Orissa High Court and Madras High Court, which treated the requirement as a procedural formality and condoned delays. The court concluded that the online filing being within the prescribed period should suffice, and the delay in physical filing could be condoned.3. Applicability of Amendments to Rule 108 of the CGST Rules, 2017:The judgment also addressed the amendments to Rule 108 of the CGST Rules, 2017, which were made effective from 26th December 2022. The court analyzed both the pre-amendment and post-amendment provisions of Rule 108, which dealt with the manner of filing appeals. The post-amendment rule eliminated the mandatory requirement of filing a certified copy of the decision/order, allowing for electronic submission. The court referred to judgments from the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Karnataka High Court, which recognized the amendment as clarificatory and applicable retrospectively. The court agreed that the amendment clarified the procedural requirements and should be applied retrospectively to benefit the petitioner.4. Procedural Requirement of Filing a Certified Copy:The court examined whether the procedural requirement of filing a certified copy of the decision/order was mandatory. It was noted that both pre-amendment and post-amendment rules allowed for electronic filing, and the requirement for a certified copy was to ensure the reliability of the order. The court concluded that the condition to physically file the certified copy was not mandatory, especially when the online filing was completed within the limitation period. The court emphasized that advancements in technology and electronic filing should be recognized, and the petitioner should not be deprived of a hearing on merits due to procedural delays.Conclusion:The court partly allowed the writ petition, remitting the appeals in OIA No. 105-115 and OIA No. 131 back to the Appellate Authority for consideration on merits. However, the petition was rejected concerning OIA No. 132, as the online filing was beyond the statutory period. The court imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000/- on the petitioner for the delay, to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. The judgment underscores the shift towards recognizing electronic filing and the non-mandatory nature of procedural requirements in the context of appeals under the CGST Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
