9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 756 - HC - GSTRejection of delayed appeal - time limitation - appeal rejected for reason of the appeal having not been filed within the period of limitation - HELD THAT - In the present case, the appeal was filed and was dismissed by the first Appellate Authority. In such circumstances, it is only proper that the appeal be restored to the files of the Authority subject to the conditions under paragraph no. 3 being satisfied - Hence the petitioner would be entitled to satisfy paragraph no. 3 of the aforesaid Notification by paying up the deficient amounts as would be required to maintain the appeal under the notification. The impugned order set aside on condition of the assessee satisfying the aforesaid conditions before the time stipulated in Notification; i.e. 31.01.2024, in which event, the appeal would be taken up and considered on merits - the writ petition is allowed.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the rejection of a delayed appeal u/s 107 of the BGST Act and the extension of time for filing appeal u/s 73 and 74 by a Notification. Rejection of Delayed Appeal: The petitioner filed a delayed appeal which was rejected for not being filed within the period of limitation as per Section 107 of the BGST Act. The appeal was beyond the one month period provided under the statute. It was held that when a specific period is provided in the statute for filing a delayed appeal, neither the Appellate Authority nor the Court could condone the delay beyond the stipulated period. The rejection was based on the statutory limitation provided under the law. Extension of Time for Filing Appeal: The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs extended the time for filing appeal against an order passed by the Proper Officer on or before 31.03.2023 u/s 73 and 74 of the BGST Act through a Notification. This extension allowed for filing an appeal in FORM GST APL-01 by 31st January 2024. The Notification specified conditions for filing the appeal, including payment of admitted tax, interest, fine, fee, and penalty, along with a sum equal to 12.5% of the remaining amount of tax in dispute, subject to certain maximum limits. The provisions of the Notification had to be satisfied for the appeal to be considered properly filed. Decision and Conclusion: The Court set aside the order rejecting the appeal, subject to the petitioner satisfying the conditions specified in the Notification before the deadline of 31.01.2024. If the conditions were met, the appeal would be considered on its merits; if not, the impugned order would stand restored. The petitioner was allowed to pay the deficient amounts to maintain the appeal under the Notification. The judgment allowed the writ petition on these terms, providing an opportunity for the appeal to be considered based on compliance with the Notification conditions.
|
