Chegg India Pvt Ltd v. Union of India & Ors

order to clarify would have retrospective effect and accordingly, the substituted Rule ought to apply in the case of petitioner as well."

¶17Based on the above judgements, the submission being made on behalf of the Petitioner is that the amendment dated 26th December 2022 which was made in Rule 108 shows that the said amendment was merely clarificatory in nature. It was merely clarifying the rule as it existed and, therefore, the benefit of online filing along with the electronic copy of the decision ought to be considered as sufficiently within the limitation period. The ld. Counsel has also relied upon the observations made in Hitachi (supra) to argue that since the substitution was to merely provide clarity to the requirement of submission of the certified copy of the order which is a procedural requirement, the Appellant cannot be non-suited on the ground of limitation.

¶18This Court had issued notice on 16th December, 2024 and Mr. Aditya Singla, ld. Counsel had accepted notice. He submitted on behalf of the Department that in this case clearly, the benefit of the amended rule ought not to be extended to the Petitioner as there was a clear delay in the filing of the physical certified copy of the order.

¶19A perusal of the amended rule and the decisions which have been cited hereinabove make it clear that the condition to physically file the certified copy of the impugned decision/order is not mandatory. Therefore, an appeal filed prior to the amendment, where the certified copy was submitted with a delay, may be condoned if the online filing was completed within the prescribed limitation period. Ultimately, what is to be borne in mind is the fact that online filing was within limitation. There is no doubt being raised as to the genuineness of the copy of the order, which has been filed.

¶20Under such circumstances, merely because the physical submission of the appeal and the order was much later, when the online filing was within the prescribed time, cannot deprive the Petitioner of hearing on merits. In most Courts and Tribunals, online filing and electronic filing is now prescribed mode and the Courts are moving towards technologically advance systems. It would be retrograde to opine that online filing, which was complete in all respects, including electronic copy of the order, is not valid filing.

¶21In view thereof, the writ petition is partly allowed insofar as the OIA No.105-115 dated 18th April, 2023 and OIA No.131 dated 28th April, 2023.

¶22The said appeals are remitted back to the Appellate Authority for being considered on merits.

¶23Insofar as OIA No. 132 is concerned, the online filing is also beyond the statutory prescribed period. Therefore, the writ petition is rejected, insofar as OIA No.132 is concerned.

¶24Since there has been a substantial delay in the physical filing, though, the Court is extending the benefit of online filing to the Petitioner, let a lump sum amount of Rs.25,000/- be deposited as costs by the Petitioner with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee subject to which the Appellate Authority shall consider the appeals qua OIA 105-115 & OIA 131 on merits.

¶25Let this order be communicated to the concerned Appellate Authority by Mr. Singla, Ld. Counsel for necessary information and compliance.

¶26The petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending Application(s), if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE AMIT SHARMA JUDGE DECEMBER 20, 2024 dj/am (corrected & released on 24th December, 2024)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 20th December, 2024 + W.P.(C) 1062/2024 & CM APPL. 4433/2024 CHEGG INDIA PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Yogendra Aldak, Mr. Agim Arora and Ms. Purvi Sinha, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC, CBIC, Mr. Ritwik Saha, Mr. Umang Mishra, Ms. Medha Navami, Mr. Sahil Parashar & Mr. Inderjeet, Advs. (M: 9958846148) CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner-Chegg India Pvt. Ltd. under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging various impugned orders passed by Respondent No.2-Additional Commissioner, CGST, Appeals-1, Delhi on different dates. The impugned orders are categorised as under: i. Order in Appeal No. 105 to 115 dated 18th April, 2023 (hereinafter 'OIA No. 105 to 115') ii. Order in Appeal No. 131 dated 28th April, 2023 (hereinafter 'OIA No. 131') iii. Order in Appeal No. 132 dated 28th April, 2023 (hereinafter 'OIA No. 132') 3. These appeals arise from various refund applications filed by the Petitioner before the Respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner CGST (hereinafter 'Proper Officer') claiming the accumulated input credit for the months of May, 2019 to December, 2019 and January, 2020 to May, 2020. These refund applications were disposed of by the Proper Officer vide various orders (hereinafter 'Orders in Original'). The tabular statement showing the various dates on which the Orders in Original were passed by the Proper Officer in relation to the Petitioner's refund applications, as well as the corresponding dates on which appeals against said orders were filed, both physically and online, is set out below: A. OIA No. 105 to 115 dated 18th April, 2023 S. No. Relevant period and OIO against which appeal filed Appeal No. Date of online filing Date of physical filing 1. May 2019 OIO dated 19.08.2021 321/GST/Appeal- 1/East/2022 dated 15.11.22 17.11.2021 15.11.2022 2. June 2019 OIO dated 26.08.2021 320/GST/Appeal- 1/East/2022 dated 15.11.22 17.11.2021 15.11.2022 3. July 2019 OIO dated 16.09.2021 319/GST/Appeal- 1/East/2022 dated 15.11.22 09.12.2021 15.11.2022 4. Aug 2019 OIO dated 16.09.2021 318/GST/Appeal- 1/East/2022 dated 15.11.22 18.11.2021 15.11.2022 5. Oct 2019 OIO dated 16.09.2021 317/GST/Appeal- 1/East/2022 dated 15.11.22 18.11.2021 15.11.2022 6. Sept 2019 OIO dated 11.11.2021 316/GST/Appeal- 1/East/2022 dated 15.11.22 18.11.2021 15.11.2022 7. Nov 2019 OIO dated 08.10.2021 315/GST/Appeal- 1/East/2022 dated 15.11.22 09.12.2021 15.11.2022 8. Dec 2019 OIO dated 08.10.2021 314/GST/Appeal- 1/East/2022 dated 15.11.22 18.11.2021 15.11.2022 9. Jan 2020 OIO dated 11.11.2021 313/GST/Appeal- 1/East/2022 dated 15.11.22 09.12.2021 15.11.2022 10. Feb 2020 OIO dated 11.11.2021 312/GST/Appeal- 1/East/2022 dated 15.11.22 09.12.2021 20.12.2022 11. Mar 2020 OIO dated 11.11.2021 311/GST/Appeal- 1/East/2022 dated 15.11.22 09.12.2021 20.12.2022 B. OIA No.131 dated 28th April, 2023 S. No . OI A No. Relevant period and OIO against which appeal filed Appeal No. Last date of filing of appeal Date of online filing Date of physical filing 1. May 2020 OIO dated 12.08.2022 349/GST/ Appeal- 1/East/20 12.11.202 12.12.2022 20.12.2022 C. OIA No. 132 dated 28th April, 2023 S. No . OI A No. Relevant period and OIO against which appeal filed Appeal No. Last date of filing of appeal Date of online filing Date of physical filing 1. April 2020 OIO dated 30.06.2022 350/GST/ Appeal- 1/East/20 30.09.202 12.12.2022 20.12.2022 4. The said appeals against the respective Orders in Original were rejected by the ld. Additional Commissioner, CGST-Respondent No. 2, on the ground of being barred by limitation. The Respondent No. 2 considered the date of physical filing as the official filing date, disregarding the date of online filing, which was within the prescribed limitation period. The principal co