9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 663X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mistake - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, in this case the petitioner had filed an appeal challenging the order passed under Section 73(9) of the said Act. Simultaneously, with the filing of the appeal, the petitioner had also made a pre-deposit of Rs. 10,900/- as is required for maintaining the appeal. As such there is no lack of bona fide on the part of the petitioner in preferring the appeal. There ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of tax of Rs. 13,47,828/- along with 10 per cent penalty of Rs. 1,34,783/- totaling to Rs. 14,82,611/- (equally segregated under CGST and WBGST). Being aggrieved with the order, an appeal was preferred before the appellate authority being the respondent no.2. However, the appeal got rejected on the ground of limitation as the petitioner while filling up the form under GST APL-04 instead of expla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal. There appears to be a delay of 19 days in filing the appeal. Taking into consideration that the petitioner is a small businessman and there is no lack of bona fide on the part of the petitioner and one does not stand to gain by filing a belated appeal, this Court quash the order dated 15th July, 2024, the appellate authority shall allow the petitioner to file an application of condonation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
