Technical Form Errors in Pre-Deposit Invalidate Appeal Rejection; Court Directs Reconsideration and Expedited Processing of Petitions

HC ruled that appeals were improperly rejected due to technical form errors in pre-deposit submission. The court remanded the matter back to the respondent to reconsider delay condoning petitions and appeals, directing expeditious processing. Appeals were reinstated, allowing petitioners to pursue their legal challenge without procedural barriers.

---

---

Issues:
The petitioners faced rejection of appeals due to making pre-deposit through the wrong format, Form GST DRC-03, instead of the prescribed Form APL-01. The delay condoning petitions submitted by the petitioners were not considered by the Respondent No. 2 before rejecting the appeals.

Pre-deposit Format Issue:
The petitioners intended to prefer appeals against Assessment Orders but faced rejection due to making pre-deposit through Form GST DRC-03 instead of Form APL-01. The petitioners argued that a technical glitch on 19.11.2022 prevented them from using the correct format, and thus, their act was not willful. The Court found that the appeals were rejected solely on the ground of the wrong format used for pre-deposit. The matter was remanded back to the respondent No. 2 to consider the reasons for the delay in filing the appeals and to decide on the appropriate orders.

Delay Condoning Petitions Issue:
The petitioners filed separate applications to condone the delay in filing the appeals. However, the Respondent No. 2 did not mention the delay condoning petitions in the impugned Orders and rejected the appeals based solely on the pre-deposit format issue. The Court noted that the delay condoning petitions were indeed submitted by the petitioners, but not considered by the Respondent No. 2. The impugned Rejection Orders were set aside, and the matters were remanded back to the respondent No. 2 to properly consider the reasons for the delay and pass orders in accordance with the law.

Urgency and Directions:
Due to the urgency in the matter, the petitioners were directed to appear before the Respondent No. 2 on a specified date. The respondent No. 2 was instructed to take up the matters expeditiously. All the Writ Petitions were disposed of without any costs, and any pending miscellaneous petitions were to be closed accordingly.

---