Madras High Court
Indian Potash Limited vs Deputy Commissioner (St) on 3 June, 2024
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 03.06.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.P.Nos.12101, 12103 & 12105 of 2024
In all Writ Petitions
Indian Potash Limited,
Represented by its authorized signatory,
R.Srinivasan, aged 58,
S/o.R. Rajagopalan,
684-690, 1st Floor,
Seethakathi Business Centre,
Anna Salai, Chennai
Subramani Suresh ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.Deputy Commissioner (ST),
GST Appeal,
GST First Appellate Authority,
Chennai,Tamil Nadu.
2.Assistant Commissioner (Circle),
Anna Salai,
No.1, PAPJM Annex Building, 4th Floor,
Greams Road, Chennai-600 006. ... Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PRAYER in W.P.No.12101 of 2024: Writ Petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus
directing the 1st Respondent to accept the Appeal bearing
acknowledgment No.AD330621002342V filed by the Petitioner by
treating the date of filing of Appeal on GST Portal i.e.18.06.2021 as
the date of filing of Appeal and pass Orders in ccordance with Law
and in light of Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Union of India v. Mohit Minerals, Civil Appeal No.1390 of 2022 dated
19.05.2022.
PRAYER in W.P.No.12103 of 2024: Writ Petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus
directing the 1st Respondent to accept the Appeal bearing
acknowledgment No.AD330621002340Z filed by the Petitioner by
treating the date of filing of Appeal on GST Portal i.e.18.06.2021 as
the date of filing of Appeal and pass Orders in ccordance with Law
and in light of Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Union of India v. Mohit Minerals, Civil Appeal No.1390 of 2022 dated
19.05.2022.
PRAYER in W.P.No.12103 of 2024: Writ Petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus
directing the 1st Respondent to accept the Appeal bearing
2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
acknowledgment No.AD3306210023091I filed by the Petitioner by
treating the date of filing of Appeal on GST Portal i.e.18.06.2021 as
the date of filing of Appeal and pass Orders in ccordance with Law
and in light of Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Union of India v. Mohit Minerals, Civil Appeal No.1390 of 2022 dated
19.05.2022.
In all WPs
For Petitioner : Ms.T.Shrayashree
for Mr.Harish Bindumadhavan
E.Manoharan, A.Murali,
Ojas Sivakumar, Keerthana Mahesh
For Respondents : Mrs.K.Vasanthamala
Government Advocate (T)
COMMON ORDER
In these three writ petitions, the petitioner seeks a direction to
the first respondent to accept the respective appeals by treating the
date of filing the appeal as 18.06.2021.
2. In the above cases, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the appellate authority. As per Rule 108(3) of applicable GST Rules,
the petitioner was required to file a hard copy of the impugned order
within seven days of presentation of the appeal. This requirement
was not complied with until 02.02.2024.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of
this Court in M/s.PKV Agencies v. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner
(GST) (Appeals), Vellore, (PKV Agencies) , 2023 (2) TMI 932 to contend
that Rule 108(3) is a purely procedural requirement and that the
appeal is required to be processed provided the appeal was filed
within time. Apart from pointing out that the impugned order is
available with the appellate authority, learned counsel further
submits that the question of refund of IGST on ocean freight was
decided by several High Courts, including this Court. In those
circumstances, learned counsel submits that great prejudice would be
caused to the petitioner unless the appeals are processed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. Ms.K.Vasanthamala, learned Government Advocate, accepts
notice for the respondents. She points out that the appeals were not
processed on account of the petitioner not filing the physical copy of
the impugned orders.
5. In PKV Agencies, this Court followed the judgment of the
Orissa High Court in M/s.Atlas PVC Pipes Ltd. v. State of Odisha, 2022
(7) TMI 130. 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. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of by
directing the first respondent to process the respective appeals by not
rejecting the same on the ground that the physical copy of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
impugned orders were filed on 02.02.2024. If the appeals are
otherwise in order, the first respondent is directed to number the
appeals within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
6. W.P.Nos.12101, 12103 & 12105 of 2024 are disposed of on the
above terms. No costs.
03.06.2024
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
kal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.Deputy Commissioner (ST),
GST Appeal,
GST First Appellate Authority,
Chennai,Tamil Nadu.
2.Assistant Commissioner (Circle),
Anna Salai,
No.1, PAPJM Annex Building, 4th Floor,
Greams Road, Chennai-600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY J.
kal
W.P.Nos.12101, 12103 & 12105 of 2024
03.06.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
