M/S Kk Iron Industries vs. Goods And Services Tax Network And 3 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Kk Iron Industries, seeks to file an appeal against an order dated December 30, 2023, passed by respondent no. 4. The petitioner had deposited certain tax amounts under protest. Following the order, the petitioner attempted to file an appeal online, but this was not possible as the order was issued via DRC-05. The petitioner then attempted to file a manual appeal, which was not accepted by the authorities. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking directions to register the manual appeal without raising the issue of limitation and to permit online filing of the appeal against the DRC-05 order.
Held
The Court, referencing the judgment in Savita Oil Technologies Ltd. Versus Union of India, directed the respondent authorities to accept the manual appeal of the petitioner if it is filed within two weeks from the date of the order. Upon filing, the authorities are to proceed in accordance with the law, grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and pass a reasoned order without unnecessary adjournments. The Court did not explicitly address the issue of enabling online filing against the DRC-05 order, focusing instead on facilitating the manual appeal process. The ratio decidendi is that procedural difficulties in filing appeals online should not bar a litigant from seeking redressal, and manual filing should be permitted within a reasonable timeframe when online mechanisms fail.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file a manual appeal against the order dated December 30, 2023, without the issue of limitation being raised by the respondents, and if so, within what timeframe? 2. Whether the petitioner should be enabled to file an online appeal against the DRC-05 order dated December 30, 2023? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that they were unable to file an online appeal due to the nature of the order (DRC-05) and that their manual appeal was rejected. They sought directions to allow manual filing and to consider the appeal on merits. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (Goods and Services Tax Network and 3 Others).
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 3210 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
By means of the present writ petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs: "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 3 to register the appeal by permitting it to be filed manually without raising the issue of limitation and to hear & dispose the appeal on merits; II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent no. 1 to permit/enable the petitioner to file online appeal against DRC-05 dated 30.12.2023; III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 30/12/2023 (Annexure No. 3) passed by respondent no. 4."
Factual matrix indicates that the petitioner had deposited certain tax amount under protest and after passing of the order attempted to file an appeal against the said orders online. Since the order was passed by way of DRC-05, the online appeal could not be filed. The petitioner, however, has attempted to file a manual appeal but the same has not been accepted.
Keeping in mind the judgment passed in Savita Oil Technologies Ltd. Versus Union of India, reported in (2023) 8 Centax 241 (Bom), we direct the respondent authorities to accept the manual appeal of the petitioner if the same is filed within two weeks from date. Once the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shubham Agrawal Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Kk Iron Industries .....Petitioner(s) Goods And Services Tax Network And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)
appeal is filed, the authorities should act in accordance with law and after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner pass a reasoned order, without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. September 8, 2025 K.K. Maurya WTAX No. 3210 of 2025 2 (Praveen Kumar Giri,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.