M/S. Sri Subrahmanyeswara 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 directed to upload the appeal electronically within two weeks from the date of the order. Upon electronic uploading, the authorities were instructed to deal with the appeal in accordance with law. The Court also stipulated that if the petitioner faced any further problems in uploading, they should immediately inform the authorities in writing and obtain acknowledgment, or approach the Court for further clarification. The Court referenced a previous High Court decision in W.P.No.9324 of 2019 where similar appeals were directed to be considered on merits rather than being rejected on technicalities. The reasoning was that the petitioner had made a genuine attempt to file the appeal within the stipulated time, and technical issues should not bar access to justice.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the 1st respondent (Appellate Authority) rejecting their special appeal. The special appeal was filed against an assessment order dated 18.02.2019 passed by the 2nd respondent for the tax periods from 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2018. The appeal was rejected on the grounds that it was filed manually instead of electronically, allegedly due to misinterpretation of Rule 108(1) of the APGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner contended that they filed the appeal manually within the limitation period because electronic filing was not possible due to technical glitches and the unavailability of the order to be impugned on the web portal. The revenue argued that non-compliance with the prescribed mode of filing justified rejection.

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 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 feasible due to technical problems and the order being challenged not being uploaded. Therefore, manual filing was permissible. They further argued that the appellate authority should have entertained the appeal on merits or provided an opportunity to comply, rather than rejecting it on technicalities. They relied on a previous judgment of the High Court in W.P.No.9324 of 2019. Revenue's arguments: The revenue contended that when a statute prescribes a specific mode for filing an appeal and this mode is not complied with, the authorities are justified in rejecting the appeal.