Payment under Section 129 does not bar appeal where authorities' failure to record payments prevented filing

Section 129(5) is interpreted to operate only in relation to a show cause notice: payment of the entire amount specified in the notice concludes proceedings as to that notice, but the provision does not refer to the subsequent order under Section 129(3). Consequently, payment pursuant to the demand does not automatically extinguish the statutory right to file an appeal against the order; where respondent authorities failed to reflect payments and thereby prevented filing of appeals, the right to appeal remains available and equitable relief may follow, leading to disposal of the petition.

---

---

Issues:
1. Non-reflection of payments made by petitioners in the website affecting their ability to file statutory appeals.
2. Glitch in the portal preventing petitioners from filing appeals despite making full payments.
3. Interpretation of Section 129(5) of the State Act regarding conclusion of proceedings after payment.
4. Right of petitioners to file appeals even after paying the entire demanded amount under Section 129(3) of the State Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The petitioners approached the court due to the respondent authorities' failure to reflect the payments made in the website, hindering their ability to file statutory appeals. The petitioners had paid the demanded amounts under protest but faced difficulties in initiating appeals due to this non-reflection.

Issue 2: The glitch in the portal prevented the petitioners from filing appeals despite making full payments as demanded under Section 129(3) of the State Act. The petitioners submitted communications to the respondent authorities highlighting this issue, but no action was taken to rectify the problem, leading to the filing of the writ petitions.

Issue 3: The respondent authorities argued that as per Section 129(5) of the State Act, upon payment of the amounts specified in Section 129(1), all proceedings under Section 129(3) are deemed concluded. This interpretation was used to justify not allowing the petitioners to file appeals.

Issue 4: The court analyzed Sections 107 and 129 of the CGST Act, 2017, and the State Act to determine the petitioners' right to file appeals after paying the demanded amounts. The court found that there was no legal bar to filing appeals if the entire demand had been paid. It emphasized that Section 129(5) only pertains to the conclusion of proceedings specified in the notice, not the right to file appeals.

In conclusion, the court held that the petitioners were wrongly deprived of their right to file appeals due to the respondent authorities' fault. The court directed the petitioners to file appeals within a specified timeline and instructed the respondent authorities to facilitate the acceptance of these appeals, even in manual mode if necessary, without insisting on the limitation period.

---