Filing of Certified Copy of Order Appealed Against is Not Mandatory but Procedural in Nature | HC
- Blog|News|GST & Customs|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 10 April, 2025
Latest from Taxmann
Case Details: Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd. v. State of U.P. - [2025] 172 taxmann.com 832 (Allahabad)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Piyush Agrawal, J.
-
Parth Goswami, Pranjal Shukla for the Petitioner.
Facts of the Case
The assessee, a public limited company, made purchases from various registered firms during the financial year 2017-18. A notice was issued to the assessee under section 61 of the GST Act, intimating discrepancies in returns Form GSTR – 3B, Form GSTR-9, Form GSTR-1 and Form GSTR-2A. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued under section 73(1) of the GST Act on the ground of a difference in Form GSTR – 3B, Form GSTR – 1 and Form GSTR – 2A. The assessee preferred an appeal against the order issued by the State Tax Officer. However, the appeal was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the certified copy of the impugned order was not filed as per rule 108 of the Rules framed under the GST Act. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the issue in hand has already been decided by the Delhi High Court in Chegg India Private Limited (2025) 123 taxmann.com 208 (Delhi) wherein the Court held that the condition for physically filing the certified copy is not mandatory but procedural in nature. If an appeal is preferred along with all documents and the copy of the appeal, the filing of a certified copy is not required. Similarly, in the case in hand, it was not in dispute that the appeal, which was preferred, was without the order appealed against. Once this fact is not in dispute, the issue in hand is covered by the judgement of the Delhi High Court in Chegg India Private Limited (supra). Thus, the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) was to be set aside.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Chegg India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 1062/2024 & CM Appl. 4433/2024, dated 20-12-.2024, relied on
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied
Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
CA | CS | CMA
