Challenging an order issued under section 129 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, petitioner had preferred an appeal before the respondent on 01-09-2021. However certain defects were noticed by the respondent and it was intimated to the petitioner by letter dated 05-10-2021, directing the same to be rectified within seven days. Due to the failure of the petitioner to rectify the defects, the respondent dismissed the appeal itself, by the impugned order.

2. Petitioner is bound to remit court fee of 1% of the disputed amount as per section 76 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 and is also required to furnish a certified copy of the order appealed against, as prescribed under Rule 108(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Since petitioner failed to furnish the certified copy as well as to remit the additional court fee, the respondent dismissed the appeal on 28-10-2021.

3. Sri.Job Abraham, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was willing to clear the defects and the dismissal of the appeal by the respondent on hypertechnicalities has caused great prejudice. It was submitted that hardly 10 days had elapsed since the expiry of the period to cure the defects pointed out and that, without even an intimation, the respondent dismissed the appeal itself.

4. On a consideration of the circumstances pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as after hearing the learned Government pleader, I am of the view that the respondent has adopted a hyper-technical approach in rejecting the appeal especially during these times of Covid-19 pandemic.

5. Though the petitioner is bound to cure the defects, within the time stipulated in the notice issued by the respondent, in the present circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that one more opportunity ought to be granted to the petitioner to rectify the defects. Interests of justice demand that a liberal approach is adopted, especially since the Covid-19 pandemic has affected every person, in every walk of life. The limitation periods had even been extended by the Supreme Court due to the unprecedented situation prevailing so that the litigants are not prevented from having access to justice, on account of prescribed periods of limitation. The impugned order is therefore liable to be set aside.

6. Accordingly, while setting aside Ext.P6 order of the respondent rejecting the appeal of the petitioner for failure to remit additional court fee and for non-submission of a certified copy of the order in appeal, I direct the respondent to restore the appeal back to the files on condition that petitioner furnishes the additional court fee, as well as the certified copy of the order, appealed against, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to mention, if the petitioner fails to abide by the stipulations as above, necessarily the respondent would be free to proceed in accordance with the law.

The writ petition is allowed as above.