9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 421 - HC - GSTTime limitation - Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - Penalty order under Section 129(3) of UPGST Act - Seizure of goods - HELD THAT - Upon perusal of the documents and upon hearing counsel for the parties, it is clear that coordinate Bench of this Court had given a specific direction by order dated September 13, 2021 giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. Furthermore, this Court in MURLI PACKERS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR RAKESH KUMAR JAIN VERSUS STATE OF UP THROUGH SECRETARY, INSTITUTIONAL FINANCE AND 2 OTHERS 2024 (2) TMI 63 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT has held that benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act would apply in relation to the appeal filed under Section 107 of the Act. The impugned order dated June 16, 2023 is quashed and set aside with a direction upon the appellate authority to hear and decide the appeal of the petitioner on merits expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order - Petition allowed.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the rejection of appeal by the Additional Commissioner under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Act, 2017 and the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the petitioner's appeal before the appellate authority. Rejection of Appeal under Section 129(3): The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Grade-2), Appeal, Commercial Tax, Gorakhpur under Section 129(3) of the Act. The petitioner had previously obtained interim relief from the High Court, which was subsequently dismissed by a coordinate Bench. The Supreme Court's order in a similar matter was cited, leading to the dismissal of the present petition by the High Court. The petitioner then filed an appeal under Section 107 of the Act within a month of the High Court's order. The petitioner argued that the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act should apply, excluding the period from March 12, 2018, to September 13, 2021. The State, however, contended that Section 14 of the Limitation Act would not apply. The High Court, after considering the facts and relevant precedents, quashed the impugned order and directed the appellate authority to hear and decide the appeal on merits expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of the court's order. Application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act: The petitioner asserted that the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act should be extended, excluding the period from March 12, 2018, to September 13, 2021, in calculating the limitation period for filing the appeal before the appellate authority. The State, on the other hand, argued against the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The High Court, after examining the circumstances and relevant legal principles, held that the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act would indeed apply to the petitioner. The court referred to a previous case where it was established that Section 14 of the Limitation Act is applicable to appeals filed under Section 107 of the Act. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the appellate authority was directed to promptly adjudicate the petitioner's appeal on its merits within a stipulated timeframe.
|
