Facts of the Case

The petitioner challenged an order dated 29.11.2022 rejecting its appeal on the technical ground that the appellate authority was not empowered to admit an appeal filed manually under Rule 108(1) of the A.P. GST Rules, in the absence of any notification by the Chief Commissioner permitting manual filing. The petitioner had attempted to upload its appeal electronically but repeatedly encountered an error message ("Please enter valid order number...error number AP-FOWC1002"), and after lodging e-mail complaints on 05.01.2022 and 06.01.2022 about the technical glitch, filed the appeal manually in January 2022.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an assessee who genuinely attempted electronic filing of a GST appeal, but was thwarted by a technical portal error, could be denied the statutory right of appeal solely because manual filing had not been separately notified by the Chief Commissioner under Rule 108.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner produced screenshots of the portal error and its email complaints, arguing it made a genuine effort to file electronically and resorted to manual filing only after that effort failed, and that it should not be penalised for a technical glitch on the department's own portal.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Government Pleader opposed the petition, reiterating that the petitioner could not produce any notification of the Chief Commissioner (ST), A.P. permitting appeals to be filed manually, as required under Rule 108.

Court Order / Findings

  • Perusing the screenshots, the Court found prima facie evidence that the petitioner attempted electronic filing but was blocked by an unknown technical glitch, and that consequently the petitioner could not be penalised or deprived of its right of appeal.
  • The Court relied on its own Division Bench ruling in W.P. No.9324 of 2019, holding that when substantial justice is pitted against technical considerations, the ends of justice must be preferred, and applied that reasoning "with all its force" to the present facts.
  • The Court held that the statutory right of appeal under Section 107 could not be defeated by the absence of a Chief Commissioner's notification for manual filing, where the assessee had first attempted electronic filing and resorted to manual filing only after a technical failure, and accordingly set aside the rejection order, directing the appellate authority to admit and process the appeal on its merits.

Important Clarification

  • Rule 108 of the (A.P.) GST Rules permits filing of an appeal "either electronically or otherwise as may be notified by the Commissioner" — but where an assessee demonstrates a genuine, documented attempt at electronic filing defeated by a technical portal glitch, the absence of a separate notification permitting manual filing cannot be used to deny the statutory right of appeal altogether.
  • This reflects the broader principle that substantial justice must prevail over technical/procedural considerations, particularly where the assessee's own conduct shows good-faith compliance efforts frustrated by the department's own system.

Sections Involved

  • Rule 108 of the A.P. GST Rules, 2017 - prescribes the manner of filing an appeal under Section 107(1), either electronically or otherwise as notified by the Commissioner.
  • Section 107 of the CGST/APGST Act, 2017 - the substantive right of appeal against orders passed under the Act.

Decision – In Favour of

The writ petition was allowed in favour of the Assessee; the appeal-rejection order was set aside and the appellate authority directed to admit and decide the appeal on merits.

Case Details

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Writ Petition No.20327 of 2023; Coram: Hon'ble Sri Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao and Hon'ble Smt. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa; decided on 11 August 2023.

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.