9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 38 - HC - GSTProfiteering - Seeking exemption from filing the requisite court-fee and sworn affidavits along with the present petition - HELD THAT - The captioned application is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to place on record the duly sworn affidavits and deposit the requisite court-fee, within three days of the resumption of the normal and usual work pattern by this court. Exclusion of summons from time limitation - pandemic covid-19 situation - HELD THAT - It is held that there is no certainty that the pandemic will abate by 15.07.2021, we are of the view that, for the moment, the summons should be kept in abeyance till the next date of hearing, i.e., 09.08.2021. Application disposed off.
Issues involved:
1. Exemption from court fee and sworn affidavits in a petition. 2. Stay on further investigation concerning builders. 3. Participation in investigation during the COVID-19 pandemic. 4. Keeping summons in abeyance due to the pandemic. 5. Exclusion of abeyance period from limitation calculation. 6. Verification of profiteered amount passed on to customers. 7. Next date of hearing for related matters. Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought exemption from filing court fee and sworn affidavits, which was granted with a direction to submit the affidavits and fee within three days of the court's normal work pattern resumption. 2. A stay on further investigation involving builders was mentioned, along with the difficulty in participating in investigations due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 3. Due to the pandemic situation, the respondents agreed to keep the summons in abeyance until 15.07.2021, excluding this period from the limitation calculation under Rule 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. 4. Considering the uncertainty of the pandemic abating by 15.07.2021, the court decided to keep the summons in abeyance until the next hearing on 09.08.2021, ensuring the petitioner's defense of limitation is not affected. 5. The petitioner asserted that the profiteered amount had been passed on to customers and requested verification, leading to a direction for respondent no. 3 to verify the details and provide instructions at the next hearing. 6. Another related matter was listed for a hearing on 09.08.2021, indicating the continuity of issues and proceedings related to the case.
|
