Case Title: M/s Yakult Danone India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Others
Court: High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Petition No.: CWP-11252-2025
Date of Judgment: July 18, 2025
Relevant Section: Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017
Category: Appeal—Dismissal on Technical Grounds
Facts (Para 1–3)
M/s Yakult Danone India Pvt. Ltd. filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), GST Bhawan, Panchkula, whereby its appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act was dismissed solely because a self-certified copy of the impugned order was not filed along with the appeal.
The petitioner argued that the appeal was submitted via e-mail on 21.03.2024, well within the three-month limitation period from the date of communication of the original order (22.12.2023). It contended that the dismissal of the appeal on the technical ground of non-submission of a self-certified copy was unjust and contrary to the decisions in M/s Himgiri Herbs v. Union of India (CWP-31391-2024, decided on 21.11.2024) and M/s Kissan Beej Kendra v. Union of India (CWP-31911-2024, decided on 27.11.2024), where similar dismissals were set aside.
Questions before the Court
Whether dismissal of an appeal filed within limitation could be justified solely on the ground of non-submission of a self-certified copy of the impugned order, despite no dispute regarding the timely filing of the appeal under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act.
Observations (Para 3–5)
The Court noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had wrongly treated the date of submission of the self-certified copy as the filing date of the appeal, thereby holding it as time-barred. The Bench observed that this reasoning was already rejected in the earlier decisions cited by the petitioner. The coordinate Bench in Himgiri Herbs and Kissan Beej Kendra had restored appeals dismissed on similar technical grounds, emphasizing that such procedural lapses could be cured.
The Court also noted that the respondent’s counsel could not distinguish the facts of the present case from the earlier rulings, nor justify the dismissal in light of the established precedent.
Judgment (Para 5)
The High Court set aside the impugned order dated 17.01.2025 and allowed the petitioner to file the self-certified copy of the order before the Appellate Authority within 15 days. The Appellate Authority was directed to restore the appeal and decide it on merits within two months of such submission.
Summary of Cases Referred
| Case | Citation | Issue | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|
| M/s Himgiri Herbs v. Union of India | CWP-31391-2024, Punjab & Haryana HC, 21.11.2024 | Appeal dismissed for not submitting self-certified copy | Dismissal quashed; allowed to submit self-certified copy within 15 days |
| M/s Kissan Beej Kendra v. Union of India | CWP-31911-2024, Punjab & Haryana HC, 27.11.2024 | Similar procedural dismissal | Appeal restored; authority directed to decide on merits |
Between Fine Lines
The High Court reinforced that procedural lapses like non-filing of a self-certified order copy cannot override substantive justice when the appeal itself is filed within limitation. This ruling provides significant relief for taxpayers whose appeals were rejected for minor technical omissions, ensuring that formality does not defeat fairness.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
