9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 1003X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considering the circumstances surrounding the delay and the actions already taken by the petitioner to discharge a substantial portion of the disputed tax liability. This Court is of the view that the appeal should not be dismissed merely due to a procedural delay, especially when the petitioner has made an effort to comply with the statutory requirements, including the pre- deposit of 10% of the tax liability and additional payments towards the disputed tax amount. Therefore, this Court is inclined to provide the petitioner an opportunity to present the matter on its merits before the second respondent. The matter is remanded back to the second respondent for fresh consideration, directing the second respondent to consider the appeal on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the petitioner further submits that the second respondent, by order dated 03.01.2025, in Form APL-02, rejected the appeal solely on the ground that the appeal was filed beyond the condonable period of limitation by 5 days. Further, in addition to the 10% pre-deposit of the tax liability under Section 107 (6) of the Act, the petitioner has duly discharged an additional 15% of the disputed tax amount, i.e. Rs. 8,009/- under CGST and Rs. 23,696/- under SGST, as per Form GST-DRC-03, dated 31.01.2025. Thus, the petitioner has already discharged a total of Rs. 13,348/- towards CGST and Rs. 39,493/- towards SGST, which amounts to 25% of the disputed tax demand. 5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent, in rejecting the petitioner's appeal on the ground of delay, applied the provisions of the GST Act strictly. However, it is the opinion of this Court that the delay of 35 days in filing the appeal, while significant, could be condoned in the interests of justice, considering the circumstances surrounding the delay and the actions already taken by the petitioner to discharge a substantial portion of the disputed tax liability. 10. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the appeal should not be dismissed merely due to a procedural delay, especially when the petitioner has made an effort to comply with the statutory requirements, including the pre- deposit of 10% of the tax liability and additional payments towards th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
