9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1513X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lication of the petitioner for fixation of special rate of value addition in terms of notification referred to above. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents are routinely rejecting such applications on the ground of limitation and that in such facts and circumstances, a writ petition came to be filed before the Gauhati High Court in the case of M/s Jyothy Labs Ltd. V. UOI and 2 others [ 2021 (8) TMI 726 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT] . The court in allowing the writ petition held that the ground for rejecting such application for the reason it was not submitted within 30th September of the given financial year would perhaps be not available to the respondent authorities for rejecting the applications. It is deemed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and similar rejection order was challenged in a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court in the case of M/s Jyothy Labs Ltd. V. UOI and 2 others . 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a Coordinate Bench of this Court has already while noticing the approach adopted by the respondents not having dealt with the claim of similarly situated persons/ petitioners, disposed of the writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 1844/2021 with direction to the respondents to decide the application without insisting for the time of filing of the applications in the light of the judgment of the Guahati High Court. 5. Mr. Rahul Nanda, learned appearing counsel for the respondents submits that the application of the petitioner can be considered afres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order is not a reasoned one and passed by non-adherence to principles of natural justice and in in a casual manner. 8. We have noticed that the order impugned has been passed by the Respondent No. 2 by not allowing any benefit to the petitioner and rejecting such application for the reason that it was not submitted within 30th September of the given financial year. 9. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the Respondent No. 2 has passed the order impugned merely on the ground of limitation, which the petitioner is substantiating, therefore, we feel that the order impugned deserves to be quashed with direction to the Respondent No. 2 to consider the application of the petitioner for fixation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
