9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 790 - HC - GSTCondonation of delay of 28 days in filing appeal - HELD THAT - The petitioner claims to have received the order on 09.03.2022. An appeal against Order-in-Original No.04/2021-2022 dated 25.02.2022 should have been filed within a period of sixty days from the date of the aforesaid order or within a period of thirty days thereafter with an application to condone the delay - However, in this case, the petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent only on 07.05.2022 beyond the period of limitation by 28 days. Although the petitioner has stated that the concerned officer of the petitioner was afflicted with Covid-19 and therefore could not file the appeal in time. The reasons stated appear to be imaginary as no records have been produced by the petitioner to substantiate the same. The petitioner shall deposit 20% of disputed tax as a condition for disposing the appeal - Petition disposed off.
Issues involved:
The petitioner challenging Order-in-Appeal No.149/2023 dated 28.03.2023 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-II) and the delay in filing the appeal. Challenge to the Impugned Order: The petitioner challenged the Order-in-Appeal No.149/2023 dated 28.03.2023 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-II) for being hit by time bar due to delayed filing of the appeal. Impleading the Commissioner (Appeals-II): The Court suo motu impleaded the Commissioner (Appeals-II) as a second respondent since the petitioner had not impleaded them initially. Operative Portion of the Impugned Order: The impugned order highlighted the timeline for filing the appeal, the reasons for delay, and the provisions of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding appeals. Delay in Filing the Appeal: The petitioner received the Order-in-Original on 09.03.2022 and filed the appeal on 07.05.2022, beyond the prescribed period of limitation by 28 days, citing delay in handing over files to the advocate due to the third wave of Covid-19. Condonation of Delay: The impugned order rejected the appeal on the grounds that the delay was not substantiated with sufficient cause as per Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and no evidence was provided to support the delay due to Covid-19. Decision of the Court: The Court acknowledged the potential merits of the petitioner's case and directed the second respondent to dispose of the appeal on its merits and in accordance with the law, subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax under Section 107 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax (TNGST) Act, 2017, thus requiring a total deposit of 20% of the disputed tax for appeal disposal. Disposition of the Writ Petition: The Writ Petition was disposed of by quashing the impugned order and instructing the second respondent to consider the appeal on its merits, with the condition of the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax, while no costs were awarded, and connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.
|
