9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed beyond the original period of three months + one month of extended period since there is no power given under the statute for condonation of delay. However, period of three months + one month, as the case may be, is required to be calculated from the day that decision or order appealed against is communicated to aggrieved person. Instant case pertains to year 2023 and since nearly six years have expired since coming into effect of new regime on 01.07.2017 the teething issues are over and; therefore, provisions of Section 169(1) of Act of 2017 deserve to be implemented in letter and spirit without implying or reading into it anything which is not expressly provided. In this view of the matter, the decision rendered by Madras High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scribed within three months from the date on which the said decision or order is communicated to such person. (2) ****** ****** ****** (3) ****** ****** ****** (4) The Appellate Authority may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of three months or six months, as the case may be, allow it to be presented within a further period of one month. 3. A bare perusal of statutory provision u/s. 107 of Act, 2017 reveals that the Appellate Authority cannot entertain an appeal filed beyond the original period of three months + one month of extended period since there is no power given under the statute for condonation of delay. However, period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly apply during the prevalence of initial stages of new regime. 5.2 Instant case pertains to year 2023 and since nearly six years have expired since coming into effect of new regime on 01.07.2017 the teething issues are over and; therefore, provisions of Section 169(1) of Act of 2017 deserve to be implemented in letter and spirit without implying or reading into it anything which is not expressly provided. In this view of the matter, the decision rendered by Madras High Court is of no avail to the petitioner. 6. It is a disputed question of fact whether impugned order was communicated to petitioner on 27.06.2023, which has to be looked into by the Appellate Authority. 7. Therefore, this Court refrains from entering into merits of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
