2024 (2) TMI 122 - HC - GST

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

Penna Cement Industries Ltd. Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh, The Chief Commissioner (ST), The Assistant Commissioner (ST) -l,

HC ruled that petitioner can file appeal within statutory limitation period. For liability component requiring instalment payment, petitioner must ... Difficulty in unitizing ITC for set off of amount required to be paid (pre-deposit) before filing of appeal - Ineligible ITC availed on account of taxpayers whose registration has been cancelled - Interest payable on delayed payment of tax in cash - Period of limitation under Section 107 (1) of APGST Act, 2017. Ineligible ITC availed on account of taxpayers whose registration has been cancelled - HELD THAT:- The petitioner wants to file appeal with respect to the liability / the amount, let the petitioner file appeal within the statutory period after complying with the legal provisions to that extent - if the appeal is not filed within the statutory period of three months, the respondents would be at liberty to proceeding further pursuant to the same impugned notice with respect to the amount. Interest payable on delayed payment of tax in cash - HELD THAT:- Since the petitioner is ready to make the payment of the amount thereunder, in instalments and Section 80 of the Act provides for the concerned authority to fix instalments for payment, to that extent, the petitioner shall approach the authority by filing appropriate application, manually, as it is submitted that the same is not being accepted electronically, under Section 80 of the Act, in the prescribed format, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. The authority shall thereafter consider the petitioner’s request for fixing the instalments for payment as per law. It is observed that if the petitioner’s grievance with respect to the system not accepting electronically the application for fixing instalments under Section 80 or for filing appeal under Section 107 with respect to the part of the liability amount of tax / penalty or interest, as the case may be, is correct and the system is accepting only such request electronically for the entire amount or entire order to avoid inconvenience to the other dealers, such grievance may be attended and appropriately resolved for future. The writ petition is disposed of. 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.