M/S. Venkateswara Rice Industry 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 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 electronic 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 favor of the appellant, emphasizing consideration of appeals on merits rather than technicalities.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order dated March 16, 2020, passed by the 1st respondent, which rejected their Special Appeal No. 15/2019-20. The rejection was based on the appeal being filed manually instead of electronically, which the petitioner contended was due to technical glitches with the department's website. The original Assessment Order, dated February 18, 2019, was passed by the 2nd respondent for the tax periods from July 1, 2017, to September 30, 2018. The petitioner had challenged this assessment order by filing a statutory appeal before the 1st respondent within the limitation period and had deposited 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, and unsustainable, given the alleged technical glitches preventing electronic submission, and thus misinterpreting Rule 108(1) of the APGST Rules, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that Rule 108(1) of the APGST Rules, 2017, permits filing of appeals either electronically or otherwise. They contended that electronic filing was not possible due to technical problems with uploading the order, and therefore, the appeal should have been entertained or an opportunity granted to comply. Revenue's Contention: 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.