https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753630 Non-filing of the physical copy of the impugned order within the period prescribed under Rule 108(3) of the GST Rules was treated as a procedural defect, not a substantive bar to maintainability. Because the appeals had been filed within limitation, the later filing of the hard copy could not justify refusal to process them. The authority was directed to number and process the appeals if they were otherwise in order. en-us Mon, 03 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Jun 2024 09:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753630 Non-filing of the physical copy of the impugned order within the period prescribed under Rule 108(3) of the GST Rules was treated as a procedural defect, not a substantive bar to maintainability. Because the appeals had been filed within limitation, the later filing of the hard copy could not justify refusal to process them. The authority was directed to number and process the appeals if they were otherwise in order. Case-Laws GST Mon, 03 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753630