9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 971 - HC - GSTCondonation of delay of 34 days in filing the appeal - seeking to release an amount in lien and de-freeze the petitioner's bank account - HELD THAT - The reason given by the petitioner for approaching the first respondent beyond the condonable period of limitation is that the petitioner was suffering from health issues and that he was taking treatment and could not file the appeal in time and therefore, there is a delay. It is noticed that in the application filed by the petitioner for condoning the delay before the first respondent and in the petition filed for condoning the delay, the petitioner has also stated the same. It is bereft of details. The petitioner may have a case to dispute the assessment that has been passed by the second respondent on 12.06.2023. The petitioner appears to be a small time dealer registered under the provisions of TNGST Act, 2017. Although the first respondent cannot be faulted for not entertaining the appeal, as the appeal is beyond the condonable period of limitation, discretion can be exercised in favour of the petitioner subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to petitioner complying with the requirements, the appeal of the petitioner, if any, shall be entertained and disposed of by the first respondent on merits and in accordance with law without reference to the limitation as expeditiously as possible. The petition is disposed off.
Issues involved: Writ petition for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash an order, condone delay in filing appeal, release amount in lien, and de-freeze bank account.
Summary: The petitioner, an assessee under the GST Act, sought to challenge an adverse assessment order by the second respondent. The statutory appeal had to be filed within 90 days, extendable by a further 30 days with an application to condone the delay. The petitioner filed the appeal beyond the condonable period, citing health issues as the reason for the delay. The first respondent rejected the appeal as not maintainable due to being beyond the condonable period. However, the court exercised discretion in favor of the petitioner, allowing the appeal to be entertained and disposed of on merits if 25% of the disputed tax is deposited within 30 days. The judgment directed the release of the amount in lien and de-freezing of the petitioner's bank account, with the appeal to be processed expeditiously. In conclusion, the Writ Petition was disposed of with the mentioned directions, and no costs were awarded. The connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed accordingly.
|
