M/S Sri Siddhi Kalko Bhagavan Stone Crusher vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned rejection order. The Court reasoned that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. It was held that the petitioner's request for adjudication on merits merited consideration. The Court directed the second respondent (Appellate Joint Commissioner) to entertain the petitioner's appeal and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the procedure established by law, after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The Court found that the ends of justice would be served by allowing the petitioner to have their cause decided on merits. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the rejection order dated 22.09.2018, passed by the Appellate Joint Commissioner (ST), Vijayawada. The appeal was rejected on the grounds that the petitioner did not adhere to the provisions of Section 107 of the A.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017, and Rule 108 of APGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner contended that an appeal can be filed electronically or otherwise, and that an electronic appeal was not possible as the order to be impugned was not uploaded. The petitioner argued that the appellate authority should have entertained the appeal or provided an opportunity to comply with the provisions. The respondents' counsel stated that no notification for Rule 108 was issued but noted from the impugned order that the appeal was not filed electronically through the GST Web Portal in form GST APL-01, despite ample opportunity.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's appeal, filed otherwise than electronically, was maintainable under Section 107 of the A.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017, and Rule 108 of APGST Rules, 2017, given the alleged non-uploading of the impugned order on the web portal? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that Rule 108 permits filing of appeals either electronically or otherwise. They contended that electronic filing was impossible without the impugned order being uploaded and that the appellate authority should have either entertained the appeal or granted an opportunity to comply with the procedural requirements instead of outright rejection. Revenue's contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that no notification as envisaged under Rule 108 had been issued by the Commissioner. However, they pointed out that the impugned order noted that the appeal was not filed electronically through the GST Web Portal in form GST APL-01, even after ample opportunity was given to the petitioner.