M/S.Bethanachi Amman Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer1/

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's claim of attempting to file the waiver application online was not supported by any documentary evidence. The Court found force in the respondent's submission that without proof of online submission attempts, the manual application could not be considered. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to grant any relief regarding the consideration of the manual waiver application. However, as a consequence of the rejection of the waiver application, the Court restored the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, which was withdrawn on 31.03.2025. The Appellate Authority was directed to take the appeal on file, if otherwise in order, and dispose of it in accordance with law. The issue of whether technical glitches could be a valid ground for accepting manual applications was implicitly addressed by the lack of proof from the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.Bethanachi Amman Traders, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the respondent, The Deputy State Tax Officer, to allow their manual waiver application and pass an order under Section 128A of the GST Act. The petitioner claimed they could not submit the waiver application online due to technical glitches and submitted it manually, which was refused. They stated they had paid all tax dues and had withdrawn an earlier appeal against an assessment order dated 26.12.2013 on 31.03.2025 to avail the waiver scheme. The respondent opposed the petition, arguing the petitioner failed to provide evidence of online submission attempts and that manual applications were not permissible. The assessment order was dated 26.12.2023, not 2013 as stated in paragraph 2 of the judgment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to allow the petitioner's manual waiver application and pass an order under Section 128A of the GST Act, considering the petitioner's claim of technical glitches preventing online submission and the respondent's contention of no proof of online attempts. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that technical glitches prevented them from filing the waiver application online within the due date, necessitating a manual submission. They argued that having paid all tax dues and withdrawn their appeal to avail the waiver scheme, refusing their manual application would cause hardship. They relied on the principle of allowing applications where genuine technical issues arise. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that the petitioner had not made any application through the online portal and had not produced any evidence to substantiate their claim of attempting online submission. Therefore, the manual waiver application could not be considered, and the writ petition should be dismissed.