M/S. K.K. Rice Traders 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 manually by the petitioner for the purpose of limitation. The petitioner was 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 directed that if the petitioner faced any further problems in uploading, they should immediately bring it to the notice of the authorities in writing and obtain acknowledgment, or approach the Court for further clarification. The Court relied on a previous decision in W.P.No.9324 of 2019, where a similar issue was decided in favour of the appellant, emphasizing that appeals should be considered on merits rather than being rejected on technicalities.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an Appeal Rejection Order (AJC Order No.ZH370720OD74610, dated 23.07.2020) passed by the 1st respondent. This order rejected the petitioner's appeal (S. No.12/2019-20) 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 on the grounds that the appeal was filed manually instead of electronically, which the petitioner contended was due to technical glitches with the department's website. The petitioner had complied with the requirement of depositing 10% of the disputed tax and filed 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 provisions of Rule 108(1) of the APGST Rules, 2017? Petitioner's contentions: 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 web portal, specifically the failure to upload the order being impugned. Therefore, the appellate authority should have entertained the appeal or provided an opportunity to comply, rather than rejecting it on technicalities. Revenue's contentions: The respondents argued that when a statute prescribes a particular mode of filing an appeal, non-compliance with that mode justifies rejection.