The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in M/s.Shivpad Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner (ST) [W.P.No.26655 of 2024, September 13, 2024] held that an appeal should not be rejected without affording the parties an opportunity to be heard, particularly when the rejection arises from technical issues beyond their control. The Court set aside the appellate authority's order rejecting the appeal and granted the petitioner additional time to file the appeal both manually and electronically.
Facts of the Case:
The petitioner, M/s.Shivpad Engineers Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated July 18, 2024 passed by the appellate authority rejecting their appeal.
The assessment order against the petitioner was completed on March 8, 2023. The petitioner manually filed an appeal against this order on July 7, 2023, which was about 1.5 months after the statutory time limit for filing appeals.
The petitioner attempted to upload a soft copy of the appeal documents as required, but was unsuccessful due to technical issues with the online portal.
The appellate authority rejected the appeal solely on the ground that the soft copy was not uploaded, without considering the hard copy that was manually submitted.
The petitioner contended that they had all the necessary documents and the appeal was indeed filed before the appellate authority. They argued that due to technical glitches beyond their control, they were unable to upload the soft copy despite attempts to do so.
The respondents argued that the appeal was rightfully rejected due to non-filing of the soft copy. They also submitted that there was a delay of 1.5 months in filing the appeal, which is beyond the statutory limit, and the appellate authority lacks the power to condone such delay under the law.
Held by the Court:
The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in W.P.No.26655 of 2024, September 13, 2024 held that:
The Court observed that the appeal was rejected solely on the ground that the soft copy was not uploaded due to technical problems. It acknowledged that the delay in filing the appeal was genuine, as it was caused by issues during the upload process that were beyond the petitioner's control. The Court opined that in such circumstances, an appeal should not be rejected without affording the parties an opportunity to be heard, particularly when the rejection arises from technical issues beyond their control.
Considering the interests of justice, the Court held that it was appropriate to grant the petitioner an additional opportunity to present their case. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order that had rejected the appeal.
The Hon'ble Court directed the petitioner to file the appeal both manually and by uploading the soft copy within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This direction effectively provided the petitioner with a fresh opportunity to comply with the procedural requirements for filing the appeal.
Furthermore, the Court instructed the appellate authority to take the appeal on record without insisting on the period of limitation, provided the appeal is otherwise in order. This direction effectively condoned the delay in filing the appeal, overriding the statutory time limit that had been exceeded.
The Court disposed of the writ petition with these directions, emphasizing that there would be no order as to costs. By doing so, the Court balanced the interests of procedural compliance with the broader interests of justice, ensuring that the petitioner's right to appeal was not defeated by technical issues beyond their control.
Relevant Sections:
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Comments