Mars Goods Carriers vs. Union Territory Of J And K And Ors. (State Taxes Administration And Enforcement)

Held

The Court permitted the petitioner to file appeals for the relevant financial years before the appellate authority within two weeks from the date of the order. The Court directed that these appeals would not be dismissed on the ground of delay if filed within the stipulated two-week period. Furthermore, if the petitioner encountered difficulties in filing an effective appeal due to a lack of information, they were permitted to move an application before the appellate authority. The appellate authority was directed to consider such applications and, if necessary, provide the required information to enable the petitioner to supplement their appeal. The appellate authority was then instructed to decide the supplemented appeals expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of filing or supplementation. The Court emphasized that the appeals would be considered on their merits. The issue of seized records was not explicitly decided but implicitly addressed by the direction to assist the petitioner in supplementing their appeal.

Facts

The petitioner, Mars Goods Carriers, is an agency that received demand notices under Section 73 of the Jammu & Kashmir SGST Act, 2017, read with Rule 142(5) of the Jammu & Kashmir SGST Rules, 2017. These notices were based on assessment orders for the financial years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21 (up to September 2020). The petitioner's counsel submitted that while an appeal provision exists, technical glitches prevented online filing. The petitioner also claimed their records were seized, hindering their ability to file an effective appeal. The Advocate General for the respondents (Union Territory of J&K and others) indicated that appeals filed within a reasonable time would be considered on merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner can be permitted to file appeals against the demand notices for the financial years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21 (up to September 2020) beyond the prescribed timeline, considering the alleged technical glitches in online filing and seizure of records. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that technical glitches in the online appeal filing system prevented them from availing the statutory remedy of appeal. They further contended that the seizure of their records made it impossible to file an effective appeal. They relied on the principle that a party should not be deprived of their legal remedy due to technical deficiencies or circumstances beyond their control. Revenue's contention: The Advocate General for the respondents submitted that the appeals would be considered on merits if filed within a reasonable time. The respondents did not dispute the existence of technical issues but did not accept the contention that seized records prevented an effective appeal.