BharatTaxGST

Vijaya Steel Corporation vs. The State Of Ap

Original PDF →
WP/30648/2025HC Andhra PradeshGSTCNR APHC01057417202503 February 2026Bench: R RAGHUNANDAN RAO,T.C.D.SEKHAR7 pages
For Petitioner: MAHESH KUMAR KANCHARLAFor Respondent: P S P SURESH KUMAR, GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
APHC010574172025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 30648/2025 Between: 1. VIJAYA STEEL CORPORATION, REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER/AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, PLOT NOS.98,99,199, IRON COMPLEX, BHAVANIPURAM, VIJAYAWADA ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRI.SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT CT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX AND CUSTOMS APPEALS, COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE ASSISTANT/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY OF FINANCE, FINANCE MINISTRY, NEW DELHI. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more 2 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.30648 of 2025 particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the impugned Appeal Rejection Order passed by the Respondent No.3 vide ORDER-IN-APPEAL No.GUN-GST- OOO-APP-142-2025-26, dt. 15.09.2025, rejecting the Appeal No. 102/2024 (G) GST, DIN-20250955 AS0000722884 filed by the Petitioner, after nearly one and half year, on the ground that it was filed manually instead of electronically by misinterpreting Rule 108 of the CGST Rules 2017 as contrary to law, arbitrary, perverse, unjustifiable, unsustainable, unfair unjust and illegal and consequently set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 to decide the Appeal filed by the petitioner on merits and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings, including collection of the disputed tax, penalty and interest, pursuant to the impugned Order of the Respondent No.4 vide ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL No.19./2023-24, CENTRAL TAX, DIN-20240355YM0000616126, C.No.GEXCOM/ADJN/MISC./112/ 2021-TECH-CGST-DIV-AMV-COMMRTE-GUNTUR,dt. 19.03.2024 pendi ng disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased May be pleased to permit the petitioner to amend the1 Cause title of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the above W.P.No.30648 of 2025 as 2. The Commissioner of Central Tax & Customs (Appeals) Central Tax Department Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Additional Commissioner, Central Tax Department (GST-Appeals), Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. “ and to pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MAHESH KUMAR KANCHARLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P S P SURESH KUMAR 2. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 3 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.30648 of 2025

The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

The petitioner herein had suffered an order of assessment, dated 19.03.2024, passed by the 4th respondent, under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 2. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached the 2nd respondent, by way of an appeal, under Section 107 of the Act. This appeal came to be filed, manually, on 16.04.2024. The petitioner had also deposited 10% of the disputed tax. The appeal was also numbered as Appeal No.102/2024(G) GST. The said appeal was taken up for hearing and a personal hearing was held on 04.08.2025. In this personal hearing, the authorized representative of the petitioner had appeared before the Appellate Authority and had reiterated the grounds of appeal. The 2nd respondent, after recording the fact that a personal hearing opportunity had been given to the representative of the petitioner, wherein the appeal had been heard on merits, had dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal had been filed manually. This order of dismissal was passed on 15.09.2025. 3. The 2nd respondent-Appellate Authority had held that Rule 108 of the C.G.S.T. Rules, 2017 permits filing of appeals only electronically and that manual filing of appeals is impermissible.

4.

The petitioner, being aggrieved by this order of dismissal, has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition.

5.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent authorities, having accepted the manual filing of the appeal, without any demur and without any objection, cannot reject the appeal at this stage on the ground that the appeal has been filed manually. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also contend that the appeal was filed on 16.04.2024 and was kept pending for 17 months before being dismissed, on 15.09.2025, on the ground that the appeal was filed manually. The learned counsel would also contend that, in such circumstances, the Appellate Authority could not have proceeded to reject the appeal without going into the merits of the appeal.

6.

The respondents have filed a counter affidavit, in which it is stated that Rule 108 of the C.G.S.T Rules is binding and the said Rule does not provide any discretion to the Appellate Authority to accept any appeal, which is not filed electronically.

7.

Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would also contend that the proviso to Rule 108 which gives some discretion to the Appellate Authority to accept the appeals which are not filed electronically, has not been notified and as such the said discretion is not available. He would further submit that the assignment of a provisional to an appeal number filed by the petitioner, does not mean that the appeal has been accepted for further hearing.

8.

The order of assessment was passed on 19.03.2024. The appeal was filed, within time, on 16.04.2024. There is no dispute that the petitioner had also deposited 10% of the disputed tax. Thereafter, the appeal was kept pending, without any notice to the petitioner that such an appeal would not be accepted as it was filed manually. In fact, the appeal was kept pending for 17 months, before the appeal had been dismissed on the ground that it had been filed manually. Another fact that needs to be taken into account is the personal hearing opportunity granted on 04.08.2025 when the representative of the petitioner was permitted to argue the appeal on the merits of the case.

9.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the appeal had been filed manually in view of certain glitches in the Online Filing System. This contention has been denied by the respondents, who stated that all the other dealers/registered persons, had been able to file appeals in this period and the contention of the petitioner that he was unable to file an appeal on account of glitches in the Online System cannot be accepted. This is a question of fact that this Court does not propose to go into.

10.

This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner, having been permitted to file and maintain an appeal for a period of 17 months, cannot be thrown out on a technicality, especially when the appeal was heard on merits also.

11.

In the circumstances, the order of the 2nd respondent-Appellate Authority, dated 15.09.2025, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 2nd respondent to decide the appeal on merits of the case and without reference to the manner or mode of the filing of the appeal.

12.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J

Date: 04.02.2026 MJA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR

WRIT PETITION NO: 30648/2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

04.02.

2026

MJA

Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.