2025 (2) TMI 342

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ships are demonstrated, particularly, in light of judicial precedents supporting such relief. The rejection of the appeal, therefore, lacked due consideration of these facts. While the petitioner acknowledges missing the extended deadline under Notification No. 53/2023 due to unawareness of the earlier appeal's rejection, the delay was not deliberate. In light of the procedural irregularities and the arbitrary nature of the actions, this court finds the petitioner's case to be meritorious. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the appellate order dated May 30, 2024 is quashed.
HON'BLE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J. For the Appellant : Mr. Rituraj Chakraborty For the State : Mr. Anirban Ray, Mr. T.M. Siddiqui, Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... S. K. Chakraborty & Sons Vs. Union of India reported in [2024] 159 taxman.com 259 (Calcutta), the Hon'ble Division Bench comprising Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi held that: - "19. Section 107 of the Act of 2017 does not exclude the applicability of the Act of 1963 expressly. It does not exclude the applicability of the Act of 1963 impliedly also if one has to consider the provisions of Section 108 of the Act 2017 which provides for a power of revision to the designated authority, against an order of adjudication. In case of revision a far more enlarged period of time for the Revisional Authority to intervene has been prescribed. Two periods of limitations have been prescribed for two different authorities namely, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 024, citing limitation and non- payment of the required pre-deposit of 12.5% of the disputed tax. However, the disputed tax amount of Rs. 32,67,900.00/- (Rs.1 6,33,950.00/- each for CGST and SGST) had already been debited from the petitioner's electronic credit ledger on 20.05.2022. The petitioner's appeal petition (Form GST APL-01) clearly reflected in Table 15(a) that no pre-deposit was required and in Table 15(b) that the entire disputed amount had been paid. In light of the procedural irregularities and the arbitrary nature of the actions, this court finds the petitioner's case to be meritorious. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the appellate order dated May 30, 2024 is quashed. The Appellate Authority is requested to cons .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X