9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... months, which is amenable to extension by the period of one month by the Commissioner on sufficient cause being shown - The prescribed period of limitation would thus, end on 24.02.2020, with a one-month leeway available to the Commissioner to extend the period of limitation. The condonable period of one month, in this instance, would end on 24.03.2020. The extension of limitation applied even to the condonable period, and not just to the prescribed period of limitation under Section 107 of the Act - Even a plain reading of the provision does not suggest that the orders need not be signed. At the least, the respondents/revenue should have appended digital signatures on the SCN and the above-mentioned order, as it has grave implications f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsigned order which directed the appearance of the petitioners authorized representative on 04.11.2019, without indicating the venue at which the proceedings would be conducted. (iii) Thirdly, the order cancelling registration dated 25.11.2019, suffers from the same defect as the SCN, i.e., it did not bear the signatures of the concerned authority i.e., the Superintendent, Ward 94. (iv) Lastly, Rule 68 of the CGST Rules, 2017 [in short 2017 Rules ] required the respondent/revenue to issue a notice to the petitioners concerning the non-filing of returns for the period in issue, having regard to the fact that up until February 2019, the petitioners had been regularly filing its returns. (iv)(a) The period during which the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , will not be applicable in the petitioners case. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. According to us, the crucial dates for determining the limitation are the following: 6.1. The impugned order cancelling the registration is dated 25.11.2019. For the moment, we would assume that this order was served on the petitioners on the date when it was issued, though that is highly unlikely. 6.2. Concededly, the period of limitation prescribed for filing the appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 [in short Act ] is three months, which is amenable to extension by the period of one month by the Commissioner on sufficient cause being shown. (See sub-section (4) of Section 107 of the Act.) 6.3. The pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. Order dated 04.01.2022 in SLP(C)No.17298/2021 .Even as held by this Court in the subsequent orders even the period of limitation which could have been extended and/or condoned by the Tribunal/Court is excluded and/or extended even up to 07.10.2021. Order dated 10.01.2022 Writ Petition (Civil) No.3/2020 5. xxx xxx xxx (IV) It is further clarified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gument that, both the SCN dated 29.10.2019, as well as the order cancelling the registration dated 25.11.2019, did not bear the signatures of the officer, Mr Ramachandran says that since these orders were to be uploaded on the Common portal, signatures were not appended by the officers. 10.1 In support of his submission that signatures need not be appended by the concerned officer, Mr Ramachandran relies upon Section 169(1)(d) of the Act. For the sake of convenience, the same is extracted hereafter: 169. Service of notice in certain circumstances (1) Any decision, order, summons, notice or other communication under this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be served by any one of the following methods, namely:- (a) by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... does not suggest that the orders need not be signed. At the least, the respondents/revenue should have appended digital signatures on the SCN and the above-mentioned order, as it has grave implications for the assessee. 11. However, this and the other aspects, on merits, are matters on which the concerned officer will return a finding, after hearing the authorized representative of the petitioners. 11.1. Accordingly, the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 28.06.2021 is set aside. 11.2. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the petitioners is restored. 11.3. The authorized representatives of petitioner will have the liberty to canvass their case before the concerned officer, who shall issue notice of hearing, in writing to the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
