M/S. Sri Krishna Sai Rice Mill vs. The Appellate Joint Commissioner, (State Taxes)

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned appeal rejection order. The Court directed the 1st respondent to accept the appeal filed manually by the petitioner for the purpose of limitation. The petitioner was instructed to upload the appeal electronically within two weeks from the date of the order. Upon electronic uploading, the authorities were directed to deal with the appeal in accordance with law. The Court also stipulated that if the petitioner encountered any problems during the electronic uploading process, they should immediately notify the authorities in writing and obtain acknowledgment, or approach the Court for further clarification. The Court noted a previous High Court decision in W.P.No.9324 of 2019 that supported considering appeals on merits rather than rejecting them on technicalities. The Court also took into account the submission from the revenue that the system would accept electronic appeals even at that stage.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the 1st respondent (appellate authority) rejecting their Special Appeal No.07/2019-20. The appeal was filed against an Assessment Order dated 06.02.2019 passed by the 2nd respondent for the tax periods from 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2018. The 1st respondent rejected the appeal on the grounds that it was filed manually instead of electronically, which the petitioner argued was due to technical glitches with the department's website. The petitioner contended that Rule 108(1) of the APGST Rules, 2017, permitted filing either electronically or otherwise. The petitioner had complied with the requirement of depositing 10% of the disputed tax and filed the appeal within the limitation period.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's appeal by the 1st respondent, solely on the ground of manual filing instead of electronic filing, is contrary to law, arbitrary, and unsustainable, considering the alleged technical glitches that prevented electronic filing, and in light of Rule 108(1) of the APGST Rules, 2017, which permits filing 'electronically or otherwise'? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 107 of the A.P.G.S.T. Act and Rule 108(1) of the APGST Rules, 2017). Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that Rule 108(1) allows for filing appeals either electronically or otherwise. They contended that electronic filing was not possible due to technical problems with the web portal, and the order being impugned was not uploaded. Therefore, the appellate authority should have entertained the appeal or provided an opportunity to comply, rather than rejecting it on technicalities. They relied on a previous High Court order in W.P.No.9324 of 2019 where a similar issue led to the appeal being considered on merits. Revenue's contentions: The respondents contended that when a statute prescribes a particular mode of filing an appeal, and that mode is not complied with, the authorities are justified in rejecting the appeal.