9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 1148 - HC - GSTCondonation of delay of 7 months and 11 days in filing appeal - HELD THAT - The appeal was filed by the petitioner with a delay of 7 months and 11 days i.e., on 12.04.2023. The impugned order passed by the first respondent dismissing the appeal of the petitioner cannot be faulted. As an officer acting under the provisions of the GST, the first respondent has to strictly apply the provisions of the Act. Although, the petitioner has taken a stand that the order passed by the second respondent was without jurisdiction and that the petitioner came to know about the order dated 02.04.2023, the fact remains that the petitioner has pre-deposited 10% of the disputed tax along with the appeal that was filed belated before the first respondent on 12.04.2023. The petitioner came to know about the impugned order passed by the second respondent on 02.04.2022 only on 23.01.2023. After the third respondent dropped the proceedings initiated for the period between April 2018-March 2019. The Court is inclined to dispose the writ petition by directing the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's appeal on merits and in accordance with law without reference to the limitation, subject to the petitioner depositing another 10% of the disputed tax within a period of 30 days from the dated of receipt of a copy of this order - petition disposed off.
Issues:
The judgment involves the challenge to an impugned order dismissing an appeal on the ground of limitation under the TNGST Act, 2017. The petitioner filed the appeal with a delay of 7 months and 11 days, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the first respondent. Details of the Judgment: Issue 1: Challenge to Impugned Order The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 19.04.2023 passed by the first respondent, which dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 12.04.2023 on the ground of limitation. The impugned order cited the relevant sections of the TNGST Act, 2017, stating the time limits for filing an appeal and the consequences of delay. The appeal was filed by the petitioner with a delay of 7 months and 11 days, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The Court upheld the first respondent's decision, emphasizing the need to strictly apply the provisions of the Act. Issue 2: Jurisdiction and Compliance The petitioner contended that the order passed by the second respondent was without jurisdiction, and they came to know about the order dated 02.04.2022, on 23.01.2023. The petitioner had pre-deposited 10% of the disputed tax along with the belated appeal filed before the first respondent on 12.04.2023. The petitioner received communication from the third respondent regarding the dropping of proceedings for a specific period, which influenced the delay in filing the appeal. The reasons provided by the petitioner in the affidavit detailed the communication received and the subsequent actions taken. Court's Decision: The Court, after considering the reasons stated in the affidavit, disposed of the writ petition by directing the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's appeal on merits and in accordance with the law without reference to the limitation. The Court ordered the petitioner to deposit another 10% of the disputed tax within 30 days from the receipt of the order. Upon compliance with this directive, the impugned order passed by the first respondent on 19.04.2023 was quashed. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs, and connected writ miscellaneous petitions were closed accordingly.
|
