M/S. Amrutha 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 by the petitioner manually for the purpose of limitation. The petitioner was given two weeks 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 faced any further problems in uploading, they should immediately notify the authorities in writing and obtain acknowledgment, or approach the Court for further clarification. The Court noted a previous similar case (W.P.No.9324 of 2019) where the appeal was considered on merits instead of being rejected on technicalities. The ratio decidendi is that appeals should not be rejected on technicalities, especially when there are technical glitches preventing compliance with a specific mode of filing, and the intent of the law is to provide a remedy on merits.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the 1st respondent (Appellate Authority) on March 16, 2020, which rejected the petitioner's Special Appeal No. 11/2019-20. This appeal was filed against an Assessment Order dated February 6, 2019, passed by the 2nd respondent for the tax periods from July 1, 2017, to September 30, 2018. The rejection was based on the ground that the appeal was filed manually, not electronically, contrary to the understanding of Rule 108(1) of the APGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner contended that electronic filing was not possible due to technical glitches and that the appeal was filed manually within the limitation period, having complied with the deposit of 10% of the disputed tax.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's appeal by the 1st respondent on the ground of manual filing, instead of electronic filing, is contrary to law, arbitrary, and unsustainable, particularly in light of Rule 108(1) of the APGST Rules, 2017? (Question of law) 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 impossible due to technical problems with the department's website, which prevented the uploading of the impugned order. Therefore, the appellate authority should have entertained the appeal or provided an opportunity to comply with the provisions, rather than rejecting it on technical grounds. They relied on the principle that appeals should be decided on merits rather than technicalities. Revenue's arguments: The respondents argued 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.