When "Hard Copy" Becomes a Hard Stop: J&K High Court's Message on GST Appeal Rejections (TC Tours Ltd.)

GST litigation has a familiar villain: the technical rejection. Not a rejection on merits, not a finding that tax is payable, not even an adverse interpretation of law-just a blunt refusal to hear the taxpayer because a procedural box was not ticked in the "right" way.

In TC Tours Limited v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. [2025(12)LCX0118], the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court addressed exactly this pattern: an appeal was rejected because (i) a "hard copy" was allegedly not submitted, and (ii) a "certified copy" of the impugned order was allegedly not uploaded/submitted. The Court held that such a rejection-especially when the appeal was filed online within time-was unsustainable, and remanded the matter to be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

This ruling is not merely about one taxpayer. It is about how GST's digital framework must actually work: if the law and rules permit electronic filing, the system cannot behave like we're still standing in a queue with a file and stapled annexures.

1) The dispute in brief: an appeal rejected without being heard

The petitioner, engaged in tour-related services, faced proceedings under Section 73. A show cause notice alleged excess input tax credit on the familiar ground-ITC claimed in GSTR-3B allegedly exceeding ITC available in GSTR-2A, for the period April 2019 to March 2020. The notice proposed demand of CGST Rs.8,57,286 and SGST Rs.8,56,546, with interest and penalty; later, a total demand of about Rs.17,14,572 (CGST+SGST) was confirmed by an order dated 02.06.2021.

The petitioner filed an appeal on the GST portal on 27.08.2021, after making a pre-deposit of Rs.1,71,458. The petitioner's case (as recorded) was that the mismatch was explainable-credits could be eligible but reflected differently in subsequent periods, and reconciliations/invoices were produced. The appeal and the impugned order were uploaded on the portal and a provisional acknowledgement was received.

Yet, the appeal was rejected through Form GST APL-02 dated 06.03.2023, not because the grounds were weak, but because the petitioner allegedly did not submit:

1. the hard copy of the appeal, and

2. the certified copy of the impugned order.

The taxpayer approached the High Court challenging this rejection as hyper-technical and contrary to the appeal framework.

2) The statutory framework: Section 107 and Rule 108 (and where "hard copy" fits)

At the heart of this controversy is a straightforward legal structure:

Crucially, the Court emphasized the enabling design of Rule 108(1): an appeal is to be filed along with relevant documents either electronically or otherwise as may be notified by the Commissioner. In simple terms:

So, the question becomes: Was there any notification or binding requirement that made "hard copy submission" mandatory in this case?

The Court found that there was no such record of any notification mandating hard copy filing in addition to electronic filing, and therefore rejecting the appeal for not filing a hard copy was not justified.

3) The Court's core reasoning: procedure cannot defeat the right of appeal

A) An online appeal cannot be thrown out merely for lack of "hard copy"

The High Court took a practical and rights-based view: when the rules contemplate electronic filing, and the taxpayer has filed online with documents, a rejection solely for non-filing of hard copy is untenable.

Even assuming the department wanted a physical set, the Court noted an important administrative principle: the authority could have granted time to cure the defect, rather than rejecting the appeal outright.

This is a subtle but powerful point: even procedural insistence must be proportionate. A missing "hard copy" is (at best) a curable defect. It should not result in the loss of a statutory remedy.

B) "Certified copy" requirement cannot be weaponised when the order is already on the portal

On certified copy, the Court recognized that the requirement has evolved with digital governance. Where an order is uploaded on the portal, insisting on a certified copy (especially when rules have been amended to align with electronic availability) becomes an unnecessary hurdle.

The Court relied on precedent including:

C) "Rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice"

The judgment reiterates a classic legal theme in modern GST language: substantial justice cannot be sacrificed at the altar of technicalities. Procedural rules exist to facilitate justice, not to block it.

When an appeal is rejected without examining merits-especially for defects that are curable-courts tend to intervene, because the taxpayer's substantive statutory right of appeal is being defeated.

4) What the High Court ultimately did: set aside and remand

The High Court:

This remedial structure is important. Courts typically do not decide the merits of tax demand in a writ petition when the statutory appellate forum has not adjudicated. Instead, they restore the appeal and ensure the taxpayer is heard.

5) Why this ruling matters beyond J&K: a pan-GST lesson

Even though the case arises under the J&K GST framework, the principles travel well across GST for three reasons:

1. Section 107 and Rule 108 are structurally similar across GST regimes (CGST/SGST rules are largely harmonised).

2. The GST system is designed as a portal-first compliance regime. Paper-based insistence should be the exception, not the norm.

3. Across India, taxpayers routinely face appeal rejections for "procedural non-compliance"-certified copy, annexure format, portal glitches, signatory mismatch, etc.

This judgment strengthens the taxpayer's argument that:

6) Practical takeaways for taxpayers: how to bulletproof GST appeals

While this decision is reassuring, it is still wiser to file appeals like you're defending them both on portal and on paper, at least until your local practice is clear. Here's a pragmatic checklist:

A) At the time of filing APL-01 on portal

○ ARN / acknowledgement,

○ submission date and time,

○ screenshots of successful uploads (especially if the portal is unstable).

B) Pre-deposit evidence

○ cash ledger debit / payment details,

○ any challans,

○ computation showing you satisfied pre-deposit requirements.

C) If a "hard copy" is demanded locally

Even if not strictly mandatory (as per this ruling), if an officer insists:

D) If certified copy becomes an issue

E) If you receive APL-02 rejection

Act fast:

7) Guidance for departments and appellate authorities: reduce litigation by design

A striking part of this case is that it could have been avoided entirely if the authority had followed two simple practices:

1. Issue a defect memo and give time to cure rather than rejecting.

2. Recognize that portal filing is the filing, and additional paper requirements must be backed by a clear notification/rule and applied reasonably.

From a system perspective, GST aims to reduce friction through digitization. When authorities insist on duplicative paper formalities without a clear legal basis, the system drifts back to pre-GST bureaucracy-only now, taxpayers must fight both the portal and the file.

8) The larger principle: a right of appeal should not be illusory

Section 107 creates a statutory right. A statutory right is meaningful only when access to the forum is real.

This case is a reminder that:

By setting aside the rejection and restoring the appeal, the High Court reaffirmed that GST adjudication must prioritise merits and fairness, not technical traps.

Conclusion

The decision in TC Tours Ltd. is a timely correction to an all-too-common administrative impulse: to dispose of appeals through procedural shortcuts. The High Court held that hard copy insistence without basis and certified copy obsession in a digital regime cannot be used to deny a taxpayer their day in appeal. The law's direction is clear-procedural rules should serve justice, not defeat it.

For taxpayers, the message is encouraging: if you have filed your appeal online within time and the system has acknowledged it, an authority cannot casually reject it on hyper-technical grounds. For the administration, the message is equally strong: process must be facilitative, especially when the statute itself is built around digital compliance.

Disclaimer: The information given in this article is solely for purpose of understanding the law. It is completely based on the interpretation of the author and cannot be constituted as a legal advise, the author of this article and Lawcrux team is not responsible for any legal issues if arises on the basis of the interpretation given above.