9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on two grounds viz., firstly, the appeal is barred by limitation; secondly, the petitioner has not made the mandatory pre-deposit of 10%. The finding of respondent No. 2 that the appeal was barred by limitation was factually incorrect inasmuch as the appeal was filed on 29.12.2023 before expiry of 4 months (3+1) and consequently, the said finding regarding the appeal being barred by limitation by proceeding on a factually incorrect premise coupled with the fact that the affidavit for condonation of delay has not been considered by respondent No. 2 - appellate authority warranting interference by this court in the present petition. Insofar as the finding recorded by respondent No. 2 as regards non-payment of mandatory pre-deposit of 10% is c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the respondent No. 2 in so far as the petitioner is concerned. (d) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or Writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to condone the delay and pass the orders on the merits of the case, in so far as the petitioner is concerned. (e) Issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Senior Intelligence Officer, DGCI, BZU, Bengaluru to return the seized documents as per the seizure order dated 08.02.2020 in so far as the petitioner is concerned. (f) Issue writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to recover the input tax credit claimed by the petitioner from the registered supplier, in so far as the petitioner is concerned. (g) Issue any other d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeal was barred by limitation was factually incorrect inasmuch as the appeal was filed on 29.12.2023 before expiry of 4 months (3+1) and consequently, the said finding regarding the appeal being barred by limitation by proceeding on a factually incorrect premise coupled with the fact that the affidavit for condonation of delay has not been considered by respondent No. 2 - appellate authority warranting interference by this court in the present petition. 5. Insofar as the finding recorded by respondent No. 2 as regards non-payment of mandatory pre-deposit of 10% is concerned, the same would also have to be reconsidered by the respondent in accordance with law. 6. In the result, the petition is hereby allowed. The order dated 31.08.2023 p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
