9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per cent in terms of the notification dated 2nd November, 2023 is not entitled to the benefit of such notification. It appears that the petitioner has already made a pre-deposit of ten per cent of the amount of the tax in dispute. As such, it cannot be said that there was any lack of bona fide on the part of the petitioner in preferring the appeal. The petitioner certainly does not stand to gain by filing a belated appeal. The order passed by the Appellate Authority on 18th March, 2024 cannot be sustained. The same is accordingly set aside - Petition disposed off. - RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. Himangshu Kumar Ray Mr. Subhasis Podder Ms. Shiwani Shaw Mr. Piyas Chowdhury. For the CGST Authority : Mr. Shib Shankar Banerj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n denied the opportunity of challenging the order passed under Section 73 of the said Act on merits. 8. In the facts as noted here, this Hon ble Court may set aside the order impugned and remand back the appeal to the Appellate Authority for a decision on merits. 9. Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, would submit that the initial order passed under Section 73 of the said Act cannot be faulted. There has been due determination on merits. 10. Although, the petitioner was entitled to file the appeal in terms of the notification dated 2nd November, 2023 by paying an amount of twelve and half per cent of tax in dispute, the same had not been done. 11. It is still further submitted that the medical pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re-deposit of ten per cent of the amount of the tax in dispute. As such, it cannot be said that there was any lack of bona fide on the part of the petitioner in preferring the appeal. The petitioner certainly does not stand to gain by filing a belated appeal. 19. Having regard to the aforesaid and taking note of the judgment delivered in the case of S.K. Chakraborty Sons. v. Union of India and others reported in (2024) 123 GSTR 229 and judgment delivered by this court in Mukul Islam v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax reported in [2024] 162 taxmann.com 552 (Calcutta), I am of the view that the Appellate Authority ought to have, in the given facts, considered the application for condonation of delay. 20. In view thereof, the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
