M/S. Sakshi Coal Depo vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others

Held

The Court quashed the order dated 15.10.2019, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh, readable copy of their appeal dated 07.08.2019 before the appellate authority within ten days from the date of the order. Upon filing the readable copy, the appellate authority was directed to hear and decide the appeal in accordance with the law expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of filing the readable copy. The Court found merit in the petitioner's contention that an opportunity to rectify the defect should have been provided. The ratio decidendi is that procedural defects in an appeal, such as an unreadable annexure, should ideally be addressed by granting the appellant an opportunity to correct them before outright rejection, thereby upholding the principles of natural justice and fair procedure.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sakshi Coal Depo, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 15.10.2019 passed by the office (Registry) of respondent no. 4, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The petition also challenged orders dated 18.7.2019 and 24.6.2019 passed by respondent no. 5. The petitioner's primary contention was that their appeal was rejected solely because the Annexure to Form GST APL-01 was not readable. The petitioner argued that even if there were readability issues, the appellate authority should have allowed them to rectify the defect by filing a readable copy, rather than outright rejecting the appeal. The respondents, on instructions, maintained that the copy of the appeal was indeed not legible.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's appeal by the appellate authority solely on the ground of an unreadable Annexure to Form GST APL-01, without providing an opportunity to rectify the defect, is legally sustainable? (Question of law). The petitioner argued that the appellate authority committed an error by rejecting the appeal without affording an opportunity to cure the defect of an unreadable annexure. They contended that the appeal itself was legible and that the authority should have directed the filing of a readable copy. The petitioner relied on the principle that procedural defects should not lead to dismissal without a chance for correction. The respondents argued that the copy of the appeal submitted by the petitioner was not legible, justifying its rejection. They did not present further arguments or cite specific provisions or precedents.