In a recent ruling, Madras High Court ruled in favour of the petitioner with regards to the IGST refund of Ocean freight. It was observed that non-production of hard copy of the impugned order under Rule 108(3) of the GST is only a technical defect and that the appeal is required to be processed provided the appeal was filed within time.
A writ petition was filed by the assessee, Indian Potash Limited seeking a direction to the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner (ST), GST Appeal to accept the respective appeals by treating the date of filing the appeal as 18.06.2021.
The facts is that, refund rejection orders were issued against the petitioner in relation to claims for refund of IGST on ocean freight. All three appeals were presented on 18.06.2021 before the appellate authority.
As per Rule 108(3) of applicable GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) Rules, 2017, the petitioner was required to file a hard copy of the impugned order within 7 days of presentation of the appeal. This requirement was not complied with until 02.02.2024.
Drawing upon a precedent set in the case of M/s. PKV Agencies v. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST) (Appeals), Vellore, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the failure to provide the hard copy was merely a procedural irregularity. The counsel contended that as long as the appeal was lodged within the stipulated time frame, it ought to be processed. Furthermore, citing previous rulings on the issue of refund of IGST ( Integrated Goods and Services Tax ) on ocean freight, the counsel highlighted potential prejudice to the petitioner if the appeals were not considered.
The respondent – department’s counsel acknowledged the receipt of the petitions. However, it was emphasised that the appeals were not processed due to the petitioner’s failure to furnish the physical copies of the impugned orders.
The Court, guided by the precedent established in PKV Agencies and referencing the decision of the Orissa High Court in M/s. Atlas PVC Pipes Ltd. v. State of Odisha, concluded that the non-production of the hard copy of the impugned order is only a technical defect. It reiterated that the appeal should be processed as long as it was filed within the statutory timeframe. Given that the appeals were lodged within the prescribed period, the Court found the rationale of PKV Agencies applicable to the present cases.
The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that “In effect, the Court concluded that the non-production of the hard copy of the impugned order is only a technical defect and that the appeal is required to be processed provided the appeal was filed within time. In the cases at hand, the refund rejection orders were issued on 19.03.2021 and the appeals were lodged on 18.06.2021. As such, the appeals were filed within time limit prescribed by statute. In those circumstances, the ratio of PKV Agencies is applicable.”
Consequently, the High Court disposed of the writ petitions by instructing the first respondent to process the appeals without rejecting them solely on the ground of the belated filing of the physical copies. The directive also mandated the numbering of the appeals within a month from the receipt of the court’s order, provided they meet other requirements.
Ms.T.Shrayashree for Mr.Harish Bindumadhavan E.Manoharan, A.Murali, Ojas Sivakumar, Keerthana Mahesh appeared for the petitioner. Mrs.K.Vasanthamala, Government Advocate (T) appeared for the department.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
