Electronic Filing Challenges Resolved: Petitioner Granted Right to Appeal Within Statutory Limitation Period and Manual Submission Option

HC ruled that petitioner can file appeal within statutory limitation period. For liability component requiring instalment payment, petitioner must approach authority manually within one week. Court acknowledged system limitations and directed resolution of electronic filing challenges while preserving legal rights. Writ petition disposed with procedural guidance, without imposing costs.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case include the legality of not allowing manual filing of FORM DRC-20, initiation of recovery proceedings before the statutory limitation period, and violation of constitutional articles.

Judgment Details:

1. Manual Filing of FORM DRC-20:
The petitioner sought relief through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the respondents' action of not allowing manual filing of FORM DRC-20. The petitioner argued that the impugned notice was issued prematurely, as the statutory limitation period for appealing an order under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act had not expired.

2. Liability Confirmation and Appeal:
The Order in FORM DRC-07 confirmed the petitioner's liability for taxes, interest, and penalty. The petitioner intended to appeal the order within the statutory period, with separate considerations for the two components of the liability mentioned in the order.

3. Recovery Proceedings and Instalment Payment:
The petitioner was willing to make payment of the liability in instalments as provided under Section 80 of the Act. However, the system was not accepting the application electronically for the specific component of the liability, leading to a procedural challenge.

4. Court's Decision:
The Court acknowledged the petitioner's right to appeal within the statutory period and directed them to file the appeal accordingly. For the component of the liability where instalment payment was sought, the petitioner was instructed to approach the authority manually within a week for resolution. Failure to comply would allow the authority to proceed as per law.

5. System Challenges and Future Resolution:
The Court noted the petitioner's grievance regarding the electronic system's limitations and urged for a resolution to avoid inconvenience to other dealers in the future. The writ petition was disposed of with observations and directions, emphasizing compliance with legal provisions.

6. Conclusion:
The Court's judgment addressed the procedural challenges faced by the petitioner regarding filing appeals and seeking instalment payments, ensuring adherence to statutory timelines and legal procedures. No costs were imposed, and the concerned authority was directed to receive a copy of the Order for necessary action.

---