9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 1467 - HC - GSTRejection of appeal filed by the petitioner against the Refund Order - appeal was dismissed by the 2nd respondent due to being filed beyond the condonable delay period of 120 days - non-constitution of Tribunal - HELD THAT - Having regard to the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and on a conspectus of the facts involved in the matter and also having regard to the fact that similar matter in SANKAR GAS AGENCY VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 2023 (5) TMI 1420 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT was allowed by this Court and in view of the fact that the Appellate Tribunal has not yet been constituted under the provisions of APGST Act 2017 the writ petition is allowed and the total delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the matter remanded back to the 2nd respondent for considering the appeal and pass an appropriate order after hearing both parties on the condition of petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax over and above the amount said to have been deposited by the petitioner within three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Petition allowed.
In the case before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the petitioner challenged an order rejecting their appeal against a refund order that levied a tax of Rs. 43,74,241/- for the period from April 2018 to March 2019. The appeal was dismissed by the 2nd respondent due to being filed beyond the condonable delay period of 120 days. The petitioner argued that the delay should be excused, given that the Appellate Tribunal under the APGST Act, 2017, had not been constituted, leaving them without a forum to appeal.
The court, referencing a similar case (W.P.No.9608 of 2023), decided to condone the delay and remitted the matter back to the 2nd respondent for reconsideration. This decision was conditioned on the petitioner depositing an additional 10% of the disputed tax within three weeks from receiving the order. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and any pending interlocutory applications were closed.
|
