2021 (2) TMI 1165 - HC - GST

High Court sets aside rejection order of manually filed appeal, directs consideration on merits over technicalities.

M/s. Ali Cotton Mill Versus The Appellate Joint Commissioner ST

The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the rejection order of the appeal filed manually instead of electronically under Rule 108(1) of ... Maintainability of appeal - appeal rejected nearly after one year on the ground that it was filed manually instead of electronically as contrary to Rule 108(1) of APGST Rules, 2017 - merits in the writ petition to allow or not - HELD THAT:- As seen from Rule 108(1) of AP GST Rules, 2017, till the Chief Commissioner specifies one particular mode of filing, the concerned appellant can choose to file the appeal either electronically or otherwise i.e., manually. In that view, the interpretation of the 1st respondent that since the Chief Commissioner has not given notification that the manual filing of the appeal can be accepted by the appellate authority, the appellant cannot file the appeal in manual form is contrary to the purport of Rule 108(1) of AP GST Rules, 2017. The other argument of learned Government Pleader representing learned Additional Advocate General – II also is not formidable. All the check memos referred to by him were issued only after filing of the appeal manually. Thereafter, the appellate authority has rejected the appeal not on the merits - Since the rejection order is contrary to Rule 108(1) of AP GST Rules, 2017, the same is liable to be set aside. Petition allowed. Issues:1. Rejection of appeal filed manually instead of electronically under Rule 108(1) of APGST Rules, 2017.Analysis:The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus challenging the rejection of their appeal by the 1st respondent for filing it manually instead of electronically as required by Rule 108(1) of APGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner had initially tried to file the appeal electronically but faced technical glitches, leading them to file it manually and obtain an acknowledgment. The rejection was solely based on the mode of filing, disregarding the content of the appeal.The petitioner argued that Rule 108 allows filing appeals either electronically or otherwise until the Chief Commissioner specifies a particular mode. The rejection based on the lack of electronic filing was deemed unjust and illegal. Reference was made to a previous Division Bench judgment directing the acceptance of an appeal in similar circumstances to support the petitioner's case.On the contrary, the Government Pleader contended that the petitioner had received multiple check memos to rectify defects in the appeal before resorting to the writ petition. It was emphasized that compliance with Rule 108(1) conditions, including filing with required documents, precedes the choice of filing mode. The Government Pleader argued against accepting the manually filed appeal due to non-compliance with the check memos.The High Court analyzed Rule 108(1) of APGST Rules, 2017, which allows filing appeals either electronically or as notified by the Chief Commissioner. The Court clarified that until a specific mode is notified, the appellant can choose the filing method. The rejection based on the absence of Chief Commissioner's instruction for manual filing was deemed incorrect. A previous Division Bench judgment was cited to emphasize the importance of adjudicating cases on merits over technicalities.The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the rejection order and directing the 1st respondent to receive, process, and consider the appeal. Any defects in the appeal should be addressed through suitable check memos for compliance by the petitioner, who must resubmit the appeal either electronically or manually. The 1st respondent was instructed to pass an appropriate order on merits after hearing the petitioner, adhering to the governing law and rules.