M/S Lakshmi Ganapathi Rice Industry vs. The Appellante 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 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 similar issue decided in W.P.No.9324 of 2019 where the appeal was considered on merits instead of being rejected on technicalities. The Court also acknowledged that the system would accept the appeal electronically even at that stage.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order by the 1st respondent (Appellate Authority) rejecting their special appeal. The 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 rejection was based on the ground that the appeal was filed manually, not electronically, contrary to 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 also argued that the assessment order was not uploaded on the web portal, preventing electronic filing. The petitioner had complied with the requirement of depositing 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, considering the alleged technical glitches and 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 appeals either electronically or otherwise. They contended that electronic filing was not possible due to technical problems with the web portal and the non-uploading of the assessment order. Therefore, the appellate authority should have entertained the appeal or provided an opportunity to comply, rather than rejecting it on technicalities. Revenue's Arguments: The respondents argued 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.