King Confectionary Through Its Proprietor Rajiv Kumar Agicha vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing that if the petitioner files an offline appeal against the assessment orders for the assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21 through physical mode, the Competent Authority shall accept and decide it on merits. This direction was provided on the condition that the appeal is filed within ten days from the date of the order. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The reasoning was based on the assurance given by the revenue that a physically filed appeal would be entertained, despite the procedural lacuna regarding the notification for offline filing under Rule 108.

Facts

The petitioner, King Confectionary, is an assessee under the GST Act. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging the inability to file an appeal against assessment orders for the assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21. The grievance was that the GST portal did not provide a mode for filing these appeals, and the alternative provision for physical filing under Rule 108 of the CGST Rules was not operational due to the absence of a necessary notification. The petitioner argued they were prejudiced by this lack of a filing mechanism. The respondents, represented by the State of Madhya Pradesh and its tax authorities, were called upon to provide instructions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for an alternative mode of filing an appeal against the assessment orders for the assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21, given the non-availability of the online portal and the absence of a notification for physical filing under Rule 108 of the CGST Rules? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the non-availability of the online portal and the lack of a notification for physical filing under Rule 108 of the CGST Rules prejudiced their right to appeal against the assessment orders for the years 2019-20 and 2020-21, thereby preventing them from seeking redressal on merits. Revenue's contention: The Additional Advocate General, on instructions, stated that while no notification under Rule 108 of the CGST Rules had been issued, the respondents would entertain and decide a physically filed appeal on its merits if directed by the Court.