AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Tarun Chadha, learned represents Mr. Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. D. Raghavendra Rao, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) appears for respondent Nos.2 and 4.
The appeal preferred by the petitioner on 30.03.2024 against the order-in-original, dated 30.10.2023 covering tax period 2018-19 and the Form GST DRC-07, dated 11.03.2024 was dismissed on the ground of delay as being beyond the condonable period of one month over the three months period prescribed under Section 107(1) and (4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, “the Act”).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of a bona fide belief that the appeal would lie only upon uploading of the Form GST DRC-07 that took place on 11.03.2024, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 30.03.2024, which was within the period prescribed under Section 107(1) and (4) of the Act. However, the appellate authority counting the period of limitation from the date of the order-in-original has rejected the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of this Court in W.P.No.28221 of 2025, dated 23.09.2025 which refers to Rule 108 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (for short, “the Rules”) and a defective Form GST DRC-07 which did not contain the interest and penalty. There was also some delay in uploading the summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07. This Court in such circumstances remanded the matter to the appellate authority on account of the inherent defect in the proceedings which should enure to the benefit of the assessee/tax payer. It is submitted that in the present case because of the delay in uploading the summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07, the petitioner bona fide filed the appeal within the period prescribed under Section 107(1) and (4) of the Act on 30.03.2024 which, however, stands rejected. Therefore, he prays that the impugned appeal order may be set aside so that the appeal can be decided on merits. have filed the appeal on 30.03.2024 which became time barred reckoning the period from the date of the order-in-original dated 30.10.2023. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the matter should be remitted to the appellate authority to take a fresh decision on the appeal in accordance with law within a reasonable period. The impugned order-in-appeal is accordingly set aside. The appellate authority would entertain the appeal on merits taking into account the observations made hereinabove.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC has opposed the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has also referred to Rule 108 of the Rules which provides for filing of an appeal against the order-in-original even if not uploaded by submitting a self-certified copy of the said decision within a period of seven days from the date of filing of Form GST APL-01. A final acknowledgment indicating appeal number is issued thereafter by the appellate authority in Form GST APL-02 and the date of issue of provisional acknowledgement is considered as the date of filing of appeal. He submits that the petitioner should have filed the appeal against the order-in-original within the time prescribed even though the summary of the order was uploaded later on. The approach of the appellate authority therefore should not be found fault with.
We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, taken note of the relevant dates as are borne out from the pleadings on record and also perused the impugned order. Rule 108 which deals with appeal to the appellate authority provides for the procedure to be followed for filing an appeal against order-in-original. Ordinarily, the summary of the order is uploaded on the same day or the following day of passing of the order-in-original. The period of limitation is counted from the date of communication of the order-in-original. However, in the instant case, due to delay in uploading the summary of the order, the petitioner on a bona fide belief appears to