M/S. Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara General Merchants And Commission Agents vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the appeal could be filed either electronically or manually as per Rule 108(1) of the APGST Rules, 2017, as the conjunctions "either" and "or" indicate a choice between modes, and the Chief Commissioner had not notified a specific mode. The Court found the Government Pleader's argument that "shall electronically" implied mandatory electronic filing to be untenable, as the word "either" before "electronically" indicated a choice. The Court also noted a discrepancy between Rule 108(1) and Rule 26(1) regarding the mode of filing, stating that in such cases of ambiguity in tax law, the benefit should go to the assessee. Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the appeal was set aside. The 3rd respondent was directed to receive the appeal, process it, issue check memos for any defects, and upon compliance by the petitioner, consider the appeal and pass an appropriate order. The Court relied on a previous Division Bench judgment in W.P.No.3308 of 2021.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara General Merchants and Commission Agents, challenged an order dated 11.12.2019 passed by the 3rd respondent, which rejected their appeal against an assessment order dated 30.05.2018 passed by the 4th respondent. The assessment order, for the tax period July 2017 to February 2018, imposed a tax liability of Rs.1,72,920/- on a differential turnover of Rs.69,16,797/- under the APGST Act, 2017, with a separate order for an equal sum under the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner filed appeals on 28.06.2018, along with proof of pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed tax, after receiving the assessment orders manually on 05.06.2018. The appeals were rejected on the ground that they were not filed electronically, despite the petitioner's attempts to file online being unsuccessful and the manual filing being acknowledged. The petitioner also cited the death of his wife due to COVID-19 as a reason for filing the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed manually by the petitioner against the assessment order dated 30.05.2018 is maintainable, considering Rule 108(1) of the APGST Rules, 2017, which allows filing "either electronically or otherwise as may be notified by the Chief Commissioner" (Petitioner's contention: Manual filing is permissible as no specific notification for electronic filing was issued by the Chief Commissioner, and the portal was not functioning. Reliance on W.P.No.3308 of 2021. Revenue's contention: Rule 108(1) mandates electronic filing, as the phrase "shall electronically" implies mandatory electronic submission, and manual filing is only permissible if notified by the Chief Commissioner, which it was not). 2. Whether Rule 26 of the APGST Rules, 2017, which specifies electronic submission with digital signature or e-signature, overrides Rule 108(1) and mandates electronic filing of appeals (Petitioner's contention: Not explicitly stated, but implied by the argument against mandatory electronic filing. Revenue's contention: Rule 26(1) clearly states that appeals "shall be submitted electronically" with digital signature or e-signature, thus mandating electronic filing).