M/S. Sri Bhagya Lakshmi 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 petitioner's appeal filed manually 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 stipulated that if the petitioner encountered 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 Court also took note of instructions received that the system would accept the appeal even if uploaded electronically at that stage.

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 06.02.2019 passed by the 2nd respondent for the tax periods 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2018. The appeal was rejected by the 1st respondent on 16.03.2020 on the grounds that it was filed manually instead of electronically, allegedly due to a misinterpretation of Rule 108(1) of the APGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner contended that they filed the appeal manually within the limitation period and complied with the deposit requirement of 10% of the disputed tax, but faced technical glitches preventing electronic filing.

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 unjust, given the alleged technical difficulties in uploading the appeal electronically, as per Rule 108(1) of the APGST Rules, 2017? The petitioner argued that Rule 108 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 the department's website, and therefore, the appellate authority should have entertained the appeal or provided an opportunity to comply with the provisions, rather than rejecting it on technicalities. The respondents argued that when a statute prescribes a specific mode of filing, non-compliance justifies rejection.