M/S. Sri Lakshmi Prasanna 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 given two weeks to upload the appeal electronically. Upon successful electronic uploading, the authorities were directed to deal with the appeal in accordance with the law. The Court also stipulated that if the petitioner encountered any further problems with uploading, they should immediately notify the authorities in writing and obtain acknowledgment, or approach the Court for further clarification. The Court referenced a previous similar case (W.P.No.9324 of 2019) where it had allowed a writ petition on the ground that the appeal should be considered on merits rather than being rejected on technicalities. The Court acknowledged that the system would accept the appeal even if uploaded electronically at a later stage.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order by the 1st respondent (Appellate Authority) dated March 16, 2020, which rejected their Special Appeal No. 27/2019-20. This appeal was filed against an Assessment Order dated April 3, 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, contrary to Rule 108(1) of the APGST Rules, 2017, which mandates electronic filing. The petitioner contended that they attempted to file electronically but faced technical glitches, leading them to file manually within the prescribed limitation period. They had also complied with the requirement of depositing 10% of the disputed tax.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the appeal by the 1st respondent on the ground of manual filing, instead of electronic filing as stipulated by Rule 108(1) of the APGST Rules, 2017, is arbitrary and illegal, particularly when the petitioner faced technical difficulties in uploading the appeal electronically? Petitioner's arguments: 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 the order being challenged was not uploaded. Therefore, the appellate authority should have entertained the appeal or provided an opportunity to comply with the provisions, rather than rejecting it on technicalities. They relied on the principle that appeals should be decided on merits. Revenue's arguments: The respondents contended that when a statute prescribes a specific mode of filing an appeal, and this mode is not complied with, the authorities are justified in rejecting the appeal.