K V Reddy Granites And Exports vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the petitioner should not be penalized or deprived of their statutory right to file an appeal due to technical glitches encountered during the electronic filing process. While Rule 108 of the A.P. GST Rules requires a notification from the Chief Commissioner for 'otherwise' (manual) submission of appeals, the Court found that the petitioner had made bona fide efforts to file electronically first. The screenshots provided prima facie indicated a technical issue that prevented electronic filing. The Court cited a Division Bench judgment of the same High Court in W.P. No.9324 of 2019, which held that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. Applying this principle, the Court found that the writ petition deserved to be allowed. The impugned order rejecting the appeal was set aside, and the 2nd respondent was directed to admit the appeal if otherwise in order and process it on merits.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the rejection order dated 29.11.2022, passed by the 2nd respondent (appellate authority). The appeal was rejected on the ground that it was filed manually, and the petitioner failed to produce evidence of a notification from the Chief Commissioner (ST), Andhra Pradesh, permitting manual filing as per Rule 108(1) of the A.P. GST Rules. The petitioner contended that they attempted to file the appeal electronically but encountered a technical glitch, as evidenced by screenshots and emails sent to the GST grievance redressal portal. Despite these efforts, the portal displayed an error message. Consequently, the appeal was filed manually in January 2022. The revenue opposed the petition, reiterating the lack of a Chief Commissioner's notification for manual filing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be deprived of their statutory right to file an appeal due to technical glitches encountered while attempting electronic filing, thereby necessitating manual filing? (Section 107, Rule 108 of A.P. GST Rules). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that they made genuine efforts to file the appeal electronically, but a technical glitch prevented it, as shown by screenshots and complaint emails. They contended that the rejection of the appeal solely on the basis of manual filing, without considering the technical difficulties, was unjustified and would deprive them of their statutory right to appeal. They relied on the principle that substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities. Revenue's arguments: The revenue contended that the petitioner failed to produce any notification issued by the Chief Commissioner (ST), Andhra Pradesh, which would have authorized manual submission of the appeal. Therefore, the manual filing was not in accordance with the prescribed procedure.