TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 498
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the assessment order dated 30.05.2018 passed by the 4th respondent. 2. The petitioner deals in edible and non-edible oils and it is a registered dealer under the APGST Act, 2017. a) The 4th respondent consequent to the inspection of petitioner's business premises on 03.02.2018, issued a show cause notice in Form GST DRC-02 (APGST) on 22.03.2018 in respect of a differential turnover involving a tax liability of Rs. 1,72,920/-. The petitioner submitted its explanation. However, the 4th respondent passed assessment order dated 30.05.2018 fixing tax liability of Rs. 1,72,920/- on the differential turnover of Rs. 69,16,797/- for the tax period July 2017 to February 2018. The 4th respondent passed a separate assessment order for equ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not by uploading through online and as the efforts made by the petitioner to file appeal before the appellate Authority through online were not successful as the GST common portal failed to open, the petitioner had to file the appeal manually. However, the appeal was rejected on the sole ground that the same was not filed electronically vide impugned order dated 11.12.2019. f) The 3rd respondent has no authority to reject the appeal. The petitioner complied with the statutory condition of pre-deposit @ 10% of the disputed tax. The impugned order was served on the petitioner on 22.02.2020. As against the impugned appeal rejection order, an appeal ought to have been presented on or before 21.05.2020 before the Appellate Tribunal. Sin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appeal was rejected on the sole ground that it was not filed electronically. He relied upon the judgment in W.P.No.3308 of 2021 dated 11.02.2021 of a Division Bench of this Court to contend that in similar circumstances, this Court directed the respondent Department to receive the appeal manually and pass appropriate orders. 6. Per contra, learned Government Pleader contended that as per Rule 108 of the GST Rules, an appeal should invariably be filed electronically but not by other mode. On two propositions, he sought to buttress his argument. 7. Firstly, referring to Rule 108(1), he argued that the phraseology "either electronically or otherwise as may be notified by the Chief Commissioner" should be comprehended in such a manne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m the date of filing the FORM GSTAPL-01, the date of filing of the appeal shall be the date of the issue of the provisional acknowledgment and where the said copy is submitted after seven days, the date of filing of the appeal shall be the date of the submission of such copy. 9. The words "electronically" and "otherwise" are co-related with the two conjunctions i.e., "either" and "or". Grammatically, these two conjunctions are used in co-relation with some words to indicate the alternativity or choice between the two persons, things, or events. In the instant case, the word "electronically" is prefixed with the conjunction "either" and the word "otherwise" is prefixed with the conjunction "or". From this usage, what can be deduced is tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anual form is contrary to the purport of Rule 108(1) of APGST Rules, 2017." So, the first argument of learned Government Pleader cannot be countenanced. 10. Secondly, referring to Rule 108(2) and Rule 26 of the APGST Rules, learned Government Pleader argued that the grounds of appeal and the form of verification as contained in FORM GST APL-01 shall be signed as specified in Rule 26. Whereas Rule 26 specifies the method of authentication of applications and other documents including "appeals" saying that the documents including appeals shall be submitted electronically with a digital signature certificate or through e-signature as specified under the provisions of Information and Technology Act, 2000 or verified by any other mode of s....