GST Vidhi | GST Case Law

Case Summary: M/S Patel Beej Bhandar v. State of U.P. and Another (Writ Tax No. 1299 of 2024):

Case No.: WRIT TAX No. - 1299 of 2024

Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Court No. 2)

Neutral Citation No.: 2024:AHC:147881

Date of Order: September 11, 2024

Counsel for Petitioner: Ajay Kumar Yadav, Arti Singh

Counsel for Respondent: C.S.C.

Hon’ble Judge: Piyush Agrawal, J.

Facts of the Case:

The petitioner, M/S Patel Beej Bhandar, filed a writ petition challenging the order passed by the Additional Commissioner-Grade-2, Etawah, on March 27, 2024. The petition was filed because the petitioner’s appeal had been rejected for being barred by limitation. The rejection was due to the petitioner’s failure to submit a self-attested copy of the order within the time period prescribed under Rule 108 of the UPGST/CGST Rule.

The proper officer had passed the order on October 14, 2022, against which the appeal was filed on January 11, 2023, along with the certified copy of the order. However, the appeal was dismissed due to the alleged delay in submitting the self-attested copy of the order.

Submissions by the Petitioner: The petitioner submitted that:

·        The rejection of their appeal on the grounds of limitation was unjust as they had filed the appeal electronically and uploaded the required documents, including the certified copy of the order.

·        Reliance was placed on Notification No. 26 of 2022, dated December 26, 2022, which mandates that a self-attested copy of the order must be submitted within seven days of filing Form GST APL-01.

·        The petitioner argued that in cases where the order is uploaded on the portal, there is no strict need for filing a self-certified copy within the prescribed time.

·        They cited the precedent set in Visible Alpha Solutions India Private Limited v. Commissioner, CGST Appeals, NOIDA and Another (Writ Tax No. 83 of 2024), where it was held that dismissal based solely on non-filing of a certified copy within time is not justified.

Submissions by the Respondent:

·        The respondent's counsel argued that the petitioner violated Section 108 of the CGST/UPGST Act and, therefore, the rejection of the appeal due to non-compliance with procedural requirements was valid and justified.

Findings and Judgement of the Court: The Court found that:

·        The petitioner's appeal had been dismissed merely because the self-attested copy of the order was submitted beyond the prescribed period.

·        The issue had been settled in the case of Visible Alpha Solutions India Private Limited where the Court ruled that dismissing an appeal for not filing a certified copy within the prescribed period is unjust. This is considered a technical defect that does not affect the merit of the case.

·        Following similar reasoning, the Court ruled that the rejection of the petitioner's appeal based on procedural grounds could not be sustained in law.

Conclusion: The impugned order dated March 27, 2024, was quashed. The matter was remanded to the authority to be decided afresh, following a proper hearing and passing a reasoned order within two months from the submission of the certified copy of the Court's order.

Disclaimer: All the Information is based on the notification, circular and order issued by the Govt. authority and judgement delivered by the court or the authority information is strictly for educational purposes and on the basis of our best understanding of laws & not binding on anyone.