2019 (8) TMI 1554 - HC - GST

Court sets aside rejection order in GST case, emphasizes substantial justice. Petitioner granted appeal, personal hearing.

M/s Sri Siddhi Kalko Bhagavan Stone Crusher Versus The Assistant Commissioner ST

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh allowed the writ petition challenging a rejection order for non-adherence to statutory provisions in the A.P.G.S.T. Act, ... Maintainability of appeal - appeal of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the appeal of the petitioner is not qualified for admission, as the petitioner did not adhere to the provisions in Section 107 of A.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017, and Rule 108 of APGST Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Having regard to the facts and submissions and as the case of the petitioner requires adjudication on merits and when substantial justice is pitted against technical considerations, it is always necessary to prefer the ends of justice, we are of the considered view that the request of the petitioner merits consideration. Such course also would help the petitioner in having his cause decided on merits. The impugned rejection order is set aside with a direction to the 2nd respondent to entertain the appeal of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with the procedure established by law, however, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner - Petition allowed. Issues:Challenge to rejection order based on non-adherence to statutory provisions in A.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017 and APGST Rules, 2017.Analysis:The judgment by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh involved a challenge to a rejection order dated 22.09.2018 issued by the Appellate Joint Commissioner (ST), Vijayawada. The rejection was based on the petitioner's failure to adhere to the provisions in Section 107 of A.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017, and Rule 108 of APGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner argued that the appeal could be filed either electronically or otherwise as per the rules, and since the order to be appealed was not uploaded on the web portal, electronic filing was not possible. The petitioner contended that the appellate authority should have entertained the appeal or provided an opportunity to comply with the provisions before rejecting it.The respondent, represented by the Standing Counsel, highlighted that no notification as required by Rule 108 was issued by the Commissioner. However, it was noted in the impugned order that the appeal was not filed electronically through the GST Web Portal in the specified form, despite ample opportunities given to the petitioner. The Court considered the submissions and facts presented, emphasizing the need to prioritize substantial justice over technicalities. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner's case required adjudication on merits and decided that the ends of justice would be better served by allowing the appeal to proceed, ensuring the petitioner's cause is decided on its merits.Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned rejection order. The second respondent was directed to entertain the petitioner's appeal and make appropriate decisions following the established legal procedures. The Court specified that a personal hearing opportunity must be granted to the petitioner during the process. No costs were awarded in the judgment, and any pending miscellaneous petitions were ordered to be closed as a result of the decision.