Quashing an order of the revenue authority which had dismissed a GST appeal due to non-submission of a certified copy, the Gujarat High Court said that when an order under appeal is available on a common portal and can be directly accessed by the appellate authority, there should be no need to submit a “certified copy” to confirm its authenticity.

The court further pointed out that in today’s times, the insistence on certified copy of orders which can be obtained directly from the website of judicial and quasi-judicial agencies is “regressive in nature and places emphasis on a useless archaism.

The petitioner had filed an appeal challenging the order of the state Joint Commissioner of Taxes, Rajkot. Due to the inability of the petitioner to submit a certified copy of the order in question, the appeal was dismissed pursuant to Rule 108(3) of the GGST Rules, 2017.

At the time of filing under Rule 108(3) of the GST Rules, 2017, submission of a certified copy of the order or decision under appeal within seven days of the filing of the appeal is required. If the certified copy was not submitted within this period, the date of filing of the appeal would be considered as the date of filing of the certified copy.

The petitioner claimed that the relevant rules were amended on December 26, 2022, allowing submission of self-certified copies in cases where the impugned decision or order was not uploaded on the common portal. In the present case, however, the order had indeed been uploaded to the portal and, therefore, according to the amended rule, a certified copy was sufficient.

A division bench of Justice Bhargav Karia and Justice DN Ray in its October 30 order, it observed that the amendment to Rule 108(3), with effect from December 26, 2022, changed the requirements for submission of certified copies. The amended rule no longer required a certified copy when the order was available on the common portal. The Court noted that this amendment was clarificatory in nature and therefore applied retrospectively.

He then said: “It is also to be noted that where the order under appeal is issued or uploaded on the common portal and it can be viewed by the appellate authority, there cannot be any obligation to submit a certified copy of this order uploaded to test its validity. authenticity. Nowadays, the insistence on ‘certified copy’ of orders which can be obtained directly from the website of judicial and quasi-judicial bodies is regressive in nature and emphasizes unnecessary archaism. For these reasons, the present petition deserves to be granted“.

The Court referred to the case of Otsuka Pharmaceutical India Pvt. Ltd.. against the Union of India and others (2024), of the High Court which declared that the amendment effective from December 26, 2022, is “clarificatory in nature, it would be applicable retrospectively and the impugned order passed by the appellate authority dismissing the appeal would, in any case, not survive”.

The amendment states: “When the decision or order under appeal is uploaded on the common portal, a final acknowledgment, indicating the appeal number, will be issued in FORM GST APL-02 by the issuing authority. appeal or an agent authorized by it in this behalf and the date of issue of the provisional recognition shall be considered as the date of filing of the appeal… Provided that where the decision or order appealed against is not uploaded on the common portal, the applicant must submit a copy self-certified declaration of the said decision or order within a period of seven days from the date of filing of FORM GST APL01 and a final acknowledgment of receipt, indicating the call number, will be issued in FORM GST APL-02 by the ‘Appeal authority…“

The Court subsequently set aside and set aside the order of the appellate authority and the matter was remanded back to the appellant authority to pass a fresh order de novo on merits after giving opportunity of hearing to the applicant.

The Court said it had not considered the merits of the case, which will be decided by the appellate authority in accordance with law. Having the plea, the Court further directed that the authority should take a decision and complete the exercise within 12 weeks of receiving a copy of the High Court order.

Case Title: Venus Macro Prints Pvt. Ltd. against the state of Gujarat

Click here to read/download the order