Case Law Details
Dinesh Dnyandeorao Pawade Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court heard a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated 29.08.2025 passed by Respondent No.4. The petitioner had sought permission to file an appeal manually after being unable to file it electronically on the GST portal. The appellate authority rejected the request on the ground that Rule 108(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 requires appeals to be filed electronically in FORM GST APL-01. The authority observed that since Form DRC-07 was not available or uploaded on the GST portal, the petitioner could not file the appeal electronically, and therefore the request for manual filing was treated as non-considerable.
The High Court noted that the appellate authority itself had recorded that the petitioner was unable to file the appeal electronically because DRC-07 was not available on the portal. The Court further observed that while the authority relied on Rule 108(1), it failed to consider the proviso to the said Rule. The proviso states that where the certified copy of the decision or order is submitted within seven days from filing FORM GST APL-01, the date of filing of appeal shall relate to the provisional acknowledgment, and if submitted later, the date of filing shall be the date of submission of such copy.
The Court interpreted the proviso to mean that manual filing of appeal is permissible where the decision or order sought to be challenged is not available on the common portal, including cases involving non-availability of DRC-07.
The Court had earlier expressed the prima facie view that the impugned order was unsustainable. During the hearing, the petitioner requested that the matter be remanded back to Respondent No.4 for reconsideration.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
1. Heard.
2. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties.
3. The reply filed by the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is taken on record.
4. By this Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the impugned order in appeal passed by the Respondent No.4 dated 29.08.2025.
5. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that, the request of the Petitioner to permit him to file appeal manually has been rejected by Respondent No.4 on the ground, which reads as under:
“15. In the present case, the appellant made an application on 27.08.2024 to accept the manual submission of APL-01 as an appeaL As per Rule 108(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017, an appeal to the appellate authority must be filed electronically in FORM GST APL-01, along with the relevant documents. I have noticed that, as per DRC-07 is not available/not uploaded on GST portal, the appellant is not able to file the appeal electronically. Therefore, as per Sub-rule (1) of Rule 108, the application for acceptance of the manual filing of the appeal is deemed non-considerable.”
6. Thus, according to Respondent No.4, Rule 108(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 provides that an appeal must be filed electronically in FORM GST APL-01 and since Form DRC-07 is not available/not uploaded on the GST portal, the appellant is not able to file the appeal electronically.
7. This Court has already observed in order dated 27.03.2026 that the authority has recorded the reason as to why the Petitioner/Appellant is unable to file the appeal electronically. The Appellate Authority has referred to sub-rule (1) of Rule 108 of the Rules, 2017, however, it overlooked the proviso to the said Rule, which reads as under:
“Provided that where the certified copy of the decision or order is submitted within seven days from the date of filing the FORM GST APL-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”
8. Thus, the proviso provides that the appeal may be filed manually, if the same cannot be filed electronically due to non-availability of the decision or order to be appealed against the common portal (DRC 07).
9. Considering the same, this Court has already expressed the view that the impugned order is unsustainable. In view of that, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, the issue be remanded back to the Respondent No.4.
10. Hence, the matter is remanded back to the Respondent No.4 and the Respondent No.4 shall consider the issue in view of proviso which is quoted in the order and take the decision in accordance with it. The Respondent No.4 shall decide the issue expeditiously.
11. Writ Petition is accordingly
12. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
13. Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
Author Bio
