Case Law Details
Sundaram Clayton Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court)
Introduction: In a noteworthy judgement, the Madras High Court has instructed the Joint Commissioner (ST) (GST – Appeals) to resolve the question of maintainability for a statutory appeal that was submitted manually due to technical glitches in the online portal. This ruling came about in the case of Sundaram Clayton Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner (ST), where the court also directed the respondent to refrain from further action on the appeals until the maintainability question is answered.
Analysis: Sundaram Clayton Limited had filed statutory appeals challenging certain orders of assessment for different periods. The appeal for one of the periods was filed manually and on time because the company could not access the online filing portal due to technical issues. The other appeals were submitted online and within the stipulated timeframe.
Despite the timely filing of the appeals, Sundaram Clayton Limited received a memo indicating potential obstacles to the maintainability of the appeals for two periods, which resulted in the request for a personal hearing. Rather than contesting the memo in court, the company sought a simple mandamus, asking for a directive to the Joint Commissioner (ST) (GST – Appeals) to decide the question of maintainability.
The court, upon assurance from the Deputy Commissioner (ST – II), recorded that no recovery actions would be initiated until a decision on the appeals’ maintainability was reached. The Government Advocate also assured the court that the petitioner would be heard and a decision regarding the maintainability of the appeals would be made within four weeks.
Conclusion: The decision by the Madras High Court underlines the importance of addressing technical difficulties within online systems and their impact on legal procedures. It brings forth the significance of flexibility and pragmatism in the court’s approach to cases affected by such technical issues. The ruling sets a precedent for similar instances, emphasizing the importance of deciding the maintainability of an appeal, even when it’s filed manually due to unforeseen technical glitches. As a result, it provides much-needed clarity and guidelines for future cases where technical issues affect the process of filing statutory appeals.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
This order disposes six writ petitions which can be divided into two tranches of matters, three writ petitions seeking mandamus directing the second respondent being the Joint Commissioner (ST) (GST – Appeals) to decide the question of maintainability of the statutory appeals pending before him (filed on 11.05.2023) and the second set of writ petitions seeking mandamus forbearing the same respondent from proceeding further with the appeals without having decided the question of maintainability.
2. These matters had come up yesterday when the primary facts were noted to the effect that the petitioner has filed statutory appeals before the second respondent challenging orders of assessment (i) dated 24.03.2023 for the period April 2019 – March, 2020 (period I), (ii) dated 24.03.2023 for the period July, 2017 – March, 2018 (period II) and (iii) dated 14.03.2023 July,2017 – March, 2018 (period III).
3. The appeal in relation to period I has been filed manually and on time, since according to petitioner it was unable to access the online filing portal on account of certain technical glitches.
4. The appeals for periods II and III have also been filed on time and online as well. However, the petitioner in receipt of a memo from R2 indicating that there may be some road blocks to maintainability of the appeals and soliciting an explanation. The petitioner has been called for a personal hearing. This memo relates only to the appeals for the period II and III and has also not been challenged before this Court, instead of which, mandamus simplicitor has been sought as aforesaid.
5. Today, written instructions have been filed by the Deputy Commissioner (ST – II) being R1 in all writ petitions that would assuage the apprehensions of the petitioner in regard to recovery proceedings. R1 confirms that no recovery would be initiated till a decision is taken on the maintainability of the appeals by R2. This is recorded.
6. As regards the mandamus sought in relation to a decision of maintainability, on instructions from the officer who is present in the Court, learned Government Advocate, would assure court that the petitioner would be heard and a decision taken regard to maintainability or otherwise of the appeals within four weeks from today. It is on these facts that learned Government Advocate is directed to seek instructions.
7. In light of the assurances as recorded aforesaid, which would achieve the purpose of mandamus sought for by the petitioners, no further directions are required.
8. These writ petitions and connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
