Manjeet Singh Sachdeva vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the petitioner has a statutory right to file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, which cannot be negated by a technical issue. Regarding the first issue, while a statutory remedy exists, the Court implicitly acknowledged the petitioner's procedural difficulty. On the second issue, the Court referred to Rule 108 of the CGST Act, 2017, which allows for manual filing if electronic filing is not possible, subject to the Commissioner's notification or if the order cannot be filed electronically. The Court further directed that even if the appellant is unable to file electronically, they should submit a representation to the Commissioner, who shall permit manual filing along with an application for condonation of delay. The petition was disposed of with this liberty/direction.

Facts

The petitioner, Manjeet Singh Sachdeva, filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging an order dated 25.05.2023 passed under Section 74 of the GST Act. The petitioner claimed to have been unaware of this order until his bank account was attached. He contended that the order was appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act, making the writ petition not maintainable. However, he also stated that his GST registration had been cancelled, preventing him from filing an appeal through the online portal and requesting permission for manual filing.

Key Issues

1. Whether a writ petition is maintainable before the High Court when a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 is available to the petitioner? (Question of law) 2. Whether the petitioner can be permitted to file an appeal manually if electronic filing is not possible due to the cancellation of GST registration? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that due to the cancellation of his GST registration, he was unable to file an appeal electronically through the portal and therefore sought permission to file it manually. He implicitly argued that the writ petition was necessitated by this procedural impediment. Revenue's arguments: The respondents (State of Madhya Pradesh and Others) contended that the order was uploaded to the petitioner's portal, implying that electronic filing under Rule 108 of the CGST Act, 2017 was possible. They also argued that if electronic filing was impossible, the petitioner should submit a representation to the Commissioner for permission to file manually along with a condonation of delay application.