M/S. Guru Raghavendru Rice Mill vs. The Appellate Joint Commissioner

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 by the petitioner manually for the purpose of limitation. The petitioner was further directed to upload the appeal electronically within two weeks from the date of the order. Upon electronic uploading, the authorities were to deal with the appeal in accordance with law. The Court also stipulated that if the petitioner encountered any further problems in uploading, they should immediately notify the authorities in writing and obtain acknowledgment, or approach the Court for clarification. The Court relied on a previous decision in W.P.No.9324 of 2019, which allowed a similar writ petition on the ground that appeals should be considered on merits rather than being rejected on technicalities. The Court found the rejection on technical grounds to be unsustainable.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the 1st respondent (Appellate Authority) rejecting their Special Appeal. 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 rejection was based on the ground that the appeal was filed manually instead of electronically, allegedly due to misinterpretation of Rule 108(1) of the APGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner contended that they attempted to file electronically but faced technical glitches, and thus filed manually within the limitation period, having also complied with the deposit requirement of 10% of the disputed tax.

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, perverse, unjustifiable, unsustainable, unfair, unjust, and illegal, in light of Rule 108(1) of the APGST Rules, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that Rule 108(1) of the APGST Rules, 2017, permits filing of an appeal either electronically or otherwise. They contended that electronic filing was not possible due to technical problems with the department's website, specifically the failure to upload the impugned order. Therefore, manual filing was permissible and the appellate authority should have entertained the appeal or provided an opportunity to comply with the provisions, rather than rejecting it outright. Revenue's arguments: The respondents contended that when a statute prescribes a specific mode of filing an appeal, and that mode is not complied with, the authorities are justified in rejecting the appeal.