2021 (4) TMI 498 - HC - GST

High Court Allows Writ Petition, Directs Appeal Processing

M/s Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh

The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the appeal rejection order and directing the 3rd respondent to receive, process, and consider the ... Interpretation of statute - requirement of filing appeal on online mode or in any other way - case of petitioner is that since the Assessment Order copies were received manually, there was no occasion for the petitioner to submit grounds of appeal electronically - Rule 108(2) and Rule 26 of the APGST Rules - HELD THAT:- It is true that Rule 26(1) specifies that all applications including the appeals which are required to be submitted under the provisions of these Rules shall be so submitted electronically with a digital signature certificate or through e-signature or verified by any other mode of signature or verification as notified by the Chief Commissioner - So far as verification is concerned, Notification No.6/2017-Central Tax dated 19.06.2017 was issued by the G.O.I.Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise and Customs, stating that the mode of verification for the purpose of Rule 26(1) is (i) Aadhar based electronic verification code (EVC) and (ii) Bank account based one time password (OTP). Thus apparently there is a discrepancy between Rule 108(1) and (2) with regard to the manner of filing the appeal and other documents. In view of the discrepancy, the benefit must go to the subject as it is a tax law. Petition allowed with a direction that the 3rd respondent shall receive the appeal, process the same and if there are any defects, issue suitable check memos for compliance by the petitioner. Issues:1. Challenge to assessment order under APGST Act, 2017 and CGST Act, 2017.2. Rejection of appeal by 3rd respondent.3. Interpretation of Rule 108 of APGST Rules, 2017 regarding filing appeals electronically.4. Discrepancy between Rule 108(1) and Rule 26 of APGST Rules, 2017.Analysis:Issue 1:The petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 30.05.2018 passed by the 4th respondent under APGST Act, 2017 and CGST Act, 2017. The differential turnover involving a tax liability was contested by the petitioner, who filed appeals against both orders on 28.06.2018.Issue 2:The 3rd respondent rejected the petitioner's appeal on the grounds that it was not filed electronically as required. The petitioner argued that since the assessment orders were received manually, there was no obligation to file electronically. The petitioner also cited a Division Bench judgment supporting manual filing in similar circumstances.Issue 3:The interpretation of Rule 108 of APGST Rules, 2017 was crucial in determining the mode of filing appeals. The learned Government Pleader contended that electronic filing was mandatory, while the petitioner argued that the rule allowed for either electronic or manual filing until specified otherwise by the Chief Commissioner.Issue 4:A discrepancy between Rule 108(1) and Rule 26 was highlighted, as Rule 26 specified electronic submission with digital signatures for appeals, while Rule 108 allowed for manual filing until notified otherwise. The court resolved this discrepancy in favor of the petitioner, stating that the benefit should go to the subject in tax laws.In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the appeal rejection order and directing the 3rd respondent to receive, process, and consider the appeal either electronically or manually. The judgment emphasized the choice of filing mode until notification by the Chief Commissioner and resolved the discrepancy between rules in favor of the petitioner.