Delhi High Court
M/S Reva Giant Impex Llp vs Assistant Commissioner Cgst Rohini ... on 18 March, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Sachdeva
Bench: Sanjeev Sachdeva
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 18.03.2024
W.P.(C) 12466/2023
M/S REVA GIANT IMPLEX LLP ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Anisha Agarwal, Advocate.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CGST ROHINI DIVISION &
ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anurag Ojha, Advocate.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 26.05.2023 whereby the appeal
filed by the petitioner against order dated 05.07.2021 has been rejected
being time-barred.
2. Petitioner on 18.05.2021 filed an application seeking refund of
Rs 8,37,487/-. Pursuant to the said application, Petitioner was issued a
Show Cause Notice dated 03.06.2021 seeking justification of the
refund application. Petitioner filed a reply dated 14.06.2021 to the said
Show Cause Notice.
3. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner, GST vide order dated
05.07.2021 allowed the refund of Rs 1,79,694.33/- and further rejected
the refund claim of Rs. 6,57,792.67/-. Petitioner thereafter filed an
appeal but the same has been rejected being time-barred.
4. Learned counsel for respondents submits that he has received
instructions that the online portal does not show that any appeal was
filed against the filing number. This is disputed by learned counsel for
petitioner, who submits that petitioner had filed an appeal on
12.07.2021 at 12:50 PM and acknowledgment was issued to the
petitioner in accordance with the rules.
5. She refers to page No. 30, which is the form GST APL-01 and
an acknowledgment at page No. 31. She further refers to the impugned
order dated 26.05.2023, particularly, paragraph 4.1, where in the
Appellate Authority has held that the appeal was filed electronically
on 12.07.2021 and the last date of filing of appeal was 04.10.2021.
6. Petitioner has been non-suited by the appellate order on the
ground that certified copy of the order appealed against had to be
submitted within seven days of the online submissions and since the
certified copy was not filed within one week of the online
submissions, the appeal was deemed to be barred by limitation.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that original order
was filed along with online submissions.
8. This Court had directed the respondents on 21.02.2024 to
produce the digital file that was uploaded by the petitioner at the time
of making the online submissions.
9. Learned counsel for respondents submits that there is a glitch in
the system and as per his instructions, the digital data of the online
submissions is not available on the online portal of the department.
10. In view of the above submissions, we are of the view that there
is no material on record to disbelieve the contention of the petitioner
that the copy of the original order in appeal was annexed with the
appeal paper book at the time of the online submissions.
11. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 26.05.2023 is
set aside. The matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority to consider
the appeal of the petitioner on merits in accordance with law.
12. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
13. It is clarified that this Court has neither commented nor
considered the contentions of the parties on merits and the Appellate
Authority shall consider the case on merits in accordance with law.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
MARCH 18, 2024/vp
