2023 (8) TMI 1212 - HC - GST

Rejection of appeal filed by the petitioner - rejection on the ground that the appellate authority is not empowered to admit the appeal filed manually as prescribed under Rule 108(1) of A.P. GST Rules - absence of production of evidence by the appellant regarding any notification being issued by the Chief Commissioner (ST), Andhra Pradesh, in terms of Rule 108. Whether the statutory right of filing appeal should be deprived to a concerned Assessee/Dealer? - HELD THAT - In similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in M/S SRI SIDDHI KALKO BHAGAVAN STONE CRUSHER VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST 2019 (8) TMI 1554 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT has observed that when substantial justice is pitted against technical considerations, it would be always necessary to prefer the ends of justice and allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner therein and set aside the appeal rejection order passed by the 2nd respondent therein. The said order applies with all its fours. Added to it, in the instant case, the facts would show that the petitioner has made efforts to submit appeal at first electronically and having failed in such attempt only he submitted the appeal in manual form. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The impugned appeal rejection order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to rejection order of appeal for not filing electronically as per Rule 108(1) of A.P. GST Rules without notification from Chief Commissioner.

Summary:
The petitioner challenged the rejection order of their appeal by the 2nd respondent, citing the lack of empowerment to admit manually filed appeals without evidence of a notification from the Chief Commissioner, as prescribed under Rule 108(1) of A.P. GST Rules. The petitioner's counsel argued that technical issues prevented electronic submission despite valid documentation, leading to manual submission. The Government Pleader contended that without the required notification, manual submission was not justified. Upon review of evidence, the court found that the petitioner's attempts at electronic submission were hindered by technical glitches, justifying the manual submission. The court emphasized the statutory right of the petitioner to file an appeal and referred to a previous case where substantial justice prevailed over technicalities, leading to the allowance of the writ petition. The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the appeal rejection order and directing the 2nd respondent to admit and process the appeal accordingly.

As a result, the writ petition was allowed, the appeal rejection order was set aside, and the 2nd respondent was instructed to admit and process the appeal in accordance with the law. No costs were awarded, and any pending interlocutory applications were closed.