M/S. Lakshrni Srinivasa 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 manually by the petitioner for the purpose of limitation. The petitioner was given two weeks from the date of the order to upload the appeal electronically. Upon such 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 further problems in uploading, they should immediately notify the authorities in writing, obtain acknowledgment, or approach the Court for clarification. The Court noted a similar issue decided in W.P.No.9324 of 2019, where the appeal was directed to be considered on merits. The ratio is that technical rejections of appeals should be avoided when there are valid reasons like technical glitches, and appeals should be decided on merits.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the 1st respondent rejecting their Special Appeal No. 26/2019-20. This appeal was filed against an Assessment Order dated 14.02.2019 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, contrary to the requirement of electronic filing under Rule 108(1) of the APGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner contended that they attempted to file electronically but faced technical glitches, leading to manual filing within the limitation period. They had 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, considering the alleged technical glitches preventing electronic filing? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that Rule 108 of the APGST Rules, 2017, permits filing of appeals either electronically or otherwise. They further contended that electronic filing was not possible due to technical problems with the web portal, specifically the non-uploading of 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. They relied on the principle that appeals should be decided on merits. Revenue's contention: 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.