M/S. Sakthi Steel Industries INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. The Appellate Additional Commissioner (State Tax)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner's GST registration was cancelled by the 4th respondent. The petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent (Appellate Authority) digitally. However, due to the appellate authority not being mapped or constituted, the digital filing was not accepted or numbered. The petitioner then filed the appeal manually, which was pending. The cancellation of registration prevented the petitioner from transacting business and digitally uploading supporting documents. A provisional acknowledgment for the appeal, stamped by the Appellate Additional Commissioner(ST), Tirupati, dated 26.04.2023, was submitted. The petitioner wished to submit supporting documents manually as digital upload was not possible.
Held
The Court directed the 1st respondent (Appellate Authority) to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner. If the appeal was otherwise in order, it was to be registered and processed for hearing within two weeks. Recognizing that the petitioner's registration was cancelled and digital submission of documents was not feasible, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to submit all relevant documents manually. The Appellate Authority was directed to admit these manual submissions, afford an opportunity of hearing to both parties, and pass an appropriate order expeditiously in accordance with the governing law and rules. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself but focused on ensuring its proper consideration.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner's appeal, filed manually after the digital filing was not accepted due to technical reasons, should be considered by the Appellate Authority? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that their GST registration was cancelled, preventing them from transacting business and digitally uploading necessary documents. They had filed an appeal manually after the digital system failed to accept it, and this appeal was pending. They sought to submit supporting documents manually. Revenue's argument: The learned Government Pleader affirmed that the petitioner had already filed an appeal which was pending and that the 1st respondent was constituted as the Appellate Authority. The authority would consider the appeal if filed.
Sections Cited
Not specified
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO AND HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
WRIT PETITION No.14312 of 2023
ORDER: (per UDPR, J)
Heard Sri N.Vijay, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, representing on behalf of the respondents and with the consent of both the learned counsel, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.
The grievance of the petitioner as ventilated by learned counsel is that as against the cancellation of GST Registration number by the 4th respondent, the petitioner has filed appeal before the 1st respondent digitally through official website, but as per his information since the appellate authority has not been mapped i.e., constituted, the digital mode of filing of appeal has not been so far accepted and numbered. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner filed appeal manually and the same is pending for consideration. Learned counsel would submit that since the date of show-cause notice i.e., 20.03.2023, the petitioner’s registration was suspended and later it was cancelled, as such, the
2 petitioner is not able to transact through his registration number. We perused the copy of provisional acknowledgment for submission of form of appeal filed along with the material papers which bears the stamp of Appellate Additional Commissioner(ST), Tirupati, dated 26.04.2023, which prima facie manifests that the petitioner indeed filed appeal before the aforesaid authority. Now, the submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner proposes to submit supporting documents like invoices and other relevant material and as his registration was cancelled, he cannot upload digitally those documents.
Learned Government Pleader would submit that since the petitioner has already filed appeal and the same is pending consideration, the petitioner can submit his case on merits before the Appellate Authority. Learned Government Pleader would affirm that the 1st respondent was constituted as Appellate Authority and the said authority would take up the appeal if already filed as submitted by the petitioner.
Considering the above respective submissions and in the interest of justice, we deem it apposite to direct the 1st respondent
3 to consider the appeal said to have been filed by the petitioner and register the same if it is otherwise in order and process the same for hearing within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Having regard to the fact that petitioner’s registration was cancelled, we give liberty to the petitioner to submit all the relevant documents before the 1st respondent manually, in which case, the said authority shall admit them and after affording an opportunity of hearing to both parties, pass an appropriate order in accordance with the governing law and rules expeditiously.
With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed. __________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J
___________________________________ VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J 21.06.2023 Note: issue C.C. by tomorrow. B/o.SS
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.