Rajasthan High Court
For assessee
Topic
First appeals: limitation, condonation of delay, pre-deposit and maintainability.
57 rulings found
Rajasthan High Court
Where SCNs and OIO were only uploaded on portal without effective service or acknowledgment to petitioner, causing delayed appeal filing, limitation period was not triggered and appellate authority's dismissal of appeal as time-barred was unjustified, delay was condoned and appeal restored for decision on merits in line with consistent writ rulings
Rajasthan High Court
Where assessee remained unaware of GST demand order due to it being uploaded only on portal under Additional Notices and Orders and not served manually, and e-filing of appeal stood blocked as time-barred, delay in filing appeal was condoned considering circumstances were beyond assessee's control and Appellate Authority was required to adjudicate appeal on merits
Rajasthan High Court
Where demand was confirmed against assessee and order was uploaded on portal under additional notices and orders tab, and assessee approached instant court with delay of 124 days, having satisfied that delay was due to reasons beyond control of assessee, appellate authority was to be directed to entertain appeal if same was filed within 30 days
Calcutta High Court
Where SCN was uploaded only under Additional Notice and Orders on GST portal without separate intimation and assessee consequently could not respond within prescribed time, dismissal of appeal under section 107 solely on limitation without examining merits was held unsustainable and appellate order was quashed with direction to admit appeal and decide matter on merits after hearing
Rajasthan High Court
Where order was uploaded only on GST portal without any manual service or personal hearing, and assessee became aware of recovery only after bank placed lien, limitation did not begin from portal upload without acknowledgement, so delay in filing appeal was condonable as reasons were beyond assessee's control, and Appellate Authority was to hear appeal on merits
Gujarat High Court
Where refund was rejected, rectification sought within statutory period was disposed by a reasoned order, and appeal was filed against both rejection and rectification, limitation for appeal must be computed from rectification order and not from earlier rejection, thus, appellate authority erred in treating appeal as time- barred based on original order and matter was liable for decision on merits
Rajasthan High Court
Where assessee filed statutory appeal after inordinate delay contending non- service of order as it was only uploaded on GST portal and became aware only upon bank account attachment, writ jurisdiction permitted condonation since delay arose from factors beyond control and denying appeal on merits would cause grave prejudice, so delay in filing was condoned and matter remitted for hearing subject to pre-deposit conditions
Rajasthan High Court
Where tax, interest and penalty were confirmed by Order-in-Original and rectification was rejected without granting hearing, but statutory appeal remedy before Appellate Authority existed, writ petition challenging impugned orders and seeking unblocking was not entertained, and petitioner was directed to avail appellate remedy, with assurance that appeal would be considered on merits without limitation objection
Karnataka High Court
Where petitioner filed statutory appeal with delay due to pendency of rectification and personal exigency and appeal was dismissed as time-barred, considering contest to levy and specific factual circumstances, delay was to be condoned and statutory appeal was to be restored for decision on merits after hearing
Rajasthan High Court
Where petitioner's GST registration was cancelled due to non-filing of returns for six months and appeal was dismissed solely on ground of delay, since petitioner was uneducated, relied on accountant or advocate, and was genuinely unaware of cancellation, order dismissing appeal was set aside and appellate authority was directed to consider appeal on merits subject to statutory deposits
Bombay High Court
Where assessee challenged order-in-original citing non-supply of relied-upon documents despite records showing proper service via registered and alternate emails, and no specific missing document or resultant prejudice was pleaded, with statutory appeal remedy available and no exceptional circumstances shown, writ under Article 226 was not maintainable and only statutory appellate route could be pursued
Gujarat High Court
Where petitioner’s appeal against order under section 74 was filed after limitation but within cutoff prescribed by Notification No. 53/2023 and payment condition was satisfied, notification applied to appeals pending or rejected for delay, so appellate authority erred in declining to entertain appeal, and rejection order was quashed with remand for decision on merits
Delhi High Court
Where petitioner challenged SCN and order-in-original alleging tax not paid and fraud-related demand under CGST after being heard and afforded detailed adjudication, existence of effective statutory appellate remedy before Appellate Authority meant writ could not be entertained, and questions of fact or competing statutory provisions including period-specific applicability were to be decided in statutory appeal
Bombay High Court
Where petitioner deposited substantial amount during investigation and rectified shortfall in statutory pre-deposit before appellate order, dismissal of appeal for non-payment of initial pre-deposit was unsustainable since procedural defects in filing requirements are curable, thus impugned appellate order was set aside and appeal restored for decision on merits
Rajasthan High Court
Where appeal against OIO could not be filed within limitation due to lack of knowledge of GST portal, appellate procedure and non-communication of order except by portal upload, delay was liable to be condoned in writ jurisdiction and appellate authority was to be directed to entertain appeal if filed within 30 days
Uttarakhand High Court
Where assessees' appeals under Section 107 were dismissed as time-barred and sought condonation beyond statutory limits invoking Section 5 read with Section 29(2) of Limitation Act, since GST is a special fiscal statute prescribing specific limitation with restricted condonation, Section 5 stood excluded by necessary implication and appeals beyond prescribed period could not be entertained
Patna High Court
Where petitioner challenged adjudication and recovery orders by writ, withdrawal was permitted with liberty to file statutory appeal before Appellate Authority, excluding period spent in writ from limitation computation and allowing condonation, but re-agitation of previously adjudicated contention was not permitted, while all other contentions remained open for appeal consideration. GST: Where petitioner sought refund of tax recovered during statutory appeal period but filed writ after three months and only within the condonable one-month period, writ registration after defect removal did not cure limitation default, and refund was denied as petitioner failed to approach authority within statutory appeal window prescribed for remedy
Calcutta High Court
Where show cause notice for tax periods was improperly served electronically under a portal tab not reasonably expected to provide notice, resulting in petitioner remaining unaware until recovery proceedings and appeal was dismissed as time-barred without merits, denial of natural justice was established, delay explained, and appellate order was quashed with direction to decide appeal on merits
Delhi High Court
Where assessee, after participating in audit and adjudication and filing detailed replies with documents, challenged an order-in-original via writ on grounds of non- consideration of reply and failure to seek additional documents, since adequate opportunity was provided and alternative appellate remedy under section 107 existed, no exceptional circumstance justified writ interference and complaint pertained to merits not natural justice
Orissa High Court
Where assessee's appeal faced statutory pre-deposit difficulties due to misclassification of interest as tax in DRC-07 and rectification was time-barred, remanding case to Appellate Authority for fresh hearing was necessary since relegating assessee to GSTAT appeal would not serve justice and disputed matters on ITC reversal, interest and penalty required reconsideration on merits