2023 (10) TMI 285 - HC - GST

Legal Challenge Succeeds: Delayed Appeal Filing Accepted Based on Reasonable Explanation and Verified Tax Deposit

The HC allowed the writ petition challenging the rejection of an appeal due to delayed filing and non-payment of tax deposit. The court found the ... Delay of 6 days in filing e-appeal - pre-requisite deposit of 10% of the disputed tax has not been paid. Submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that, the Assessment Order dated 02.01.2022 was not uploaded on the official website immediately and therefore, he was constrained to file the appeal in manual form on 28.02.2022. HELD THAT:- The Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 3308/2021 [2021 (2) TMI 1165 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] observed that manual form of filing appeal is permissible in terms of Rule 108(1) of APGST Rules 2017. The conspectus of the facts and law shows that the explanation offered by the petitioner against the first ground of dismissal as plausible and tenable. So far as, the second ground of rejection is concerned a perusal of copy of the challan filed along with material papers shows that the petitioner made a pre-deposit of 10% of the demanded tax on 25.02.2022 i.e., at the time of manual filing of the appeal. Therefore, it can be said that the said requirement was also complied. Thus, the 1st respondent ought to have admitted the appeal filed in electronic form instead of rejecting the same under the impugned endorsement. The impugned endorsement dated 09.09.2022 passed by the 1st respondent is set aside with a direction to the 1st respondent to register the appeal and dispose of the same in accordance with governing law - Petition allowed. Issues involved:The challenge in this writ petition is to the rejection of the appeal against the Assessment Order due to delay in filing and non-payment of the pre-requisite deposit of disputed tax.Issue 1 - Delay in filing the appeal:The main reason for rejection of the appeal was the delay in filing, as the original Assessment Order was served on the same date but the appeal was filed manually after six months, and later electronically. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to the non-immediate uploading of the Assessment Order on the official website, leading to the manual filing. Subsequently, an electronic appeal was filed after the Assessment Order was uploaded.Issue 2 - Non-payment of pre-requisite deposit:Another ground for rejection was the non-payment of 10% of the disputed tax. The petitioner contended that the deposit was made at the time of filing the appeal in manual form, as evidenced by the e-challan submitted.The court considered the explanations provided by the petitioner for both grounds of rejection. It was noted that the Assessment Order was not immediately uploaded on the official website, justifying the delay in filing the appeal manually. The petitioner later filed an electronic appeal after the Assessment Order was available online, which was deemed acceptable. Additionally, the court found that the pre-requisite deposit of 10% of the disputed tax was made at the time of manual filing, fulfilling the requirement.The Division Bench referred to a previous case where manual filing of appeals was deemed permissible under the relevant rules. Considering the facts and legal provisions, the court found the petitioner's explanations plausible and compliant with the requirements. Therefore, the court held that the appeal should have been admitted in electronic form instead of being rejected.Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, setting aside the rejection of the appeal and directing the respondent to register and dispose of the appeal expeditiously in accordance with the law and rules, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No costs were awarded, and any pending interlocutory applications were to be closed.