The Delhi High Court has held that the appeal against the refund rejection order shall be considered on merits on the finding that the same is filed within the statutory period of 3 months based on the provisions of Section 12 (1) and (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963.
The dispute arose when Pramod Kumar Tomar, proprietor of M/S Paramount Steel filed an appeal challenging the rejection of his refund claim by the Assistant Commissioner of Mundka Division, Delhi West, under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
The rejection was based solely on the grounds of limitation, with the Appellate Authority citing a delay in filing the appeal due to the absence of the original order at the time of online filing.
The petitioner, represented by Mr. Nitin Gulati contended that the original order was indeed uploaded along with the appeal on the online portal, thereby meeting the requirements of Rule 108(3) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017. However, due to a technical glitch, the order was not visible to the department on their online portal, leading to confusion regarding the filing date.
The petitioner demonstrated before the court that the original order was indeed uploaded along with the appeal, refuting the initial dispute raised by the respondents.
The respondent revenue, represented by Mr. Aakarsh Srivastava and Mr. Vaibhav Gupta contended that the appeal was filed one day late, disputing the petitioner’s claim of timely filing. Initially, they argued that the original order was not uploaded with the appeal due to a technical glitch, leading to confusion over the filing date. Later, they acknowledged the technical glitch and confirmed that the order had been uploaded along with the appeal.
The crux of the legal issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, which specifies the time limit for filing appeals against decisions or orders passed under the Act. According to Section 107(1), any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act or the State Goods and Services Tax (SGST) Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax (UTGST) Act by an adjudicating authority may appeal to such Appellate Authority as may be prescribed within three months from the date on which the said decision or order is communicated to such person.
The court also emphasised the provisions of the Limitation Act, particularly Section 12, which allows for the exclusion of certain periods while computing the limitation period.
Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 deals with the exclusion of time in legal proceedings. It states that in computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, or application, the day from which such period is to be reckoned shall be excluded.
Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 states that in computing the period of limitation for an appeal or an application for leave to appeal or for revision or for review of a judgment, the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence, or order appealed from or sought to be revised or reviewed shall be excluded.
The bench held that even if the order was communicated or uploaded on the day it was signed, the period of limitation should commence from the following day, in accordance with Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act. Therefore, the petitioner’s appeal, filed within three months from the presumed communication/upload date of the order, was deemed to be within the statutory period.
In conclusion, the division bench comprising Mr. Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Mr. Justice Ravinder Dudeja ruled that the rejection of the claim of refund amounting to Rs.6,45,000 on the grounds of limitation was unjustified and directed the Appellate Authority to consider the petitioner’s appeal on its merits.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
