9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ight and had filed the appeal along with the pre-deposit as is required for maintaining the appeal. Factum of payment of such pre-deposit would corroborate from the Form GST APL-01. It appears that in filing the appeal there was some delay. The powers of the Appellate Authority to condone the delay beyond one month from the time prescribed had duly been considered in the case of S.K. CHAKRABORTY SONS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. [ 2023 (12) TMI 290 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] . It has been held that in absence of non obstante clause rendering Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, non applicable and in absence of specific exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, it would be improper to read implied exclusion thereof. As such, the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s case that the petitioner had duly responded to the said show cause and had tried to explain the discrepancies, notwithstanding the aforesaid by an order dated 22nd June, 2023 the proper officer had determined the liability of the petitioner to the extent of Rs.2,95,142/- on account of tax. 3. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid determination, an appeal was filed under Section 107 of the said Act along with pre-deposit as is required to maintain the said appeal. 4. Since such appeal was filed belatedly, an application, inter alia, praying for condonation of delay was also filed. A medical certificate in support of such application for condonation of delay was also placed on record. 5. The records reveal that Appellate Authority by its orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osit as is required for maintaining the appeal. Factum of payment of such pre-deposit would corroborate from the Form GST APL-01. It appears that in filing the appeal there was some delay. 13. The petitioner had duly filed an application on 27th October, 2023 explaining the delay. Supporting documents to corroborate the explanation given by the petitioner were also annexed to the application for condonation of delay. 14. I find that the delay is only marginal. 15. Upon perusal of the application for condonation of delay, it appears that the petitioner had been able to appropriately explain the delay in filing the aforesaid appeal. 16. The powers of the Appellate Authority to condone the delay beyond one month from the time prescribed had du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
