Topic
First appeals: limitation, condonation of delay, pre-deposit and maintainability.
69 rulings
Telangana High Court
Where taxpayer filed writ challenging order under section 73 claiming knowledge only upon order's upload in 'additional notices' of portal, and statutory appeal under section 107 was available, writ jurisdiction was not exercised, liberty granted for appeal with delay condonation and pre- deposit, and appellate authority directed to consider condonation and decide merits if satisfied
Telangana High Court
Where petitioner filed appeal against order-in-original with delay and omitted to disclose pending rectification application due to Chartered Accountant error, omission deprived petitioner of a material ground for delay condonation, thus order dismissing appeal as time-barred was to be set aside and matter was to be remitted to appellate authority for fresh consideration of condonation application and if satisfaction, decide appeal on merits
Calcutta High Court
Where adjudication order was not communicated to petitioner but only to its accountant who failed to relay information, leading to appeal delay until recovery action, dismissal of appeal as time-barred was unjustified since sufficient cause existed and mandatory pre-deposit was paid, warranting condonation of delay and admission of appeal for substantive appellate remedy. GST: Where petitioner learned of recovery only after bank accounts were frozen and payment of mandatory pre-deposit was made before filing appeal, interference was warranted to secure justice as recovery during pendency of appeal after pre-deposit violated statutory scheme, thus delay in filing appeal deserved condonation though garnishee freeze was ordered to continue till disposal of appeal
Telangana High Court
Where assessee filed rectification application against original order within limitation, appeal was filed within three months of rectification rejection, and all statutory remedies were diligently pursued, dismissal of appeal as time- barred due to technical defects in memo was unjustified, and pragmatic approach called for remand for decision on merits
Telangana High Court
Where petitioner challenged IGST demand on export supplies under Notification 41/2017-IGST (Rate) alleging violation of natural justice and non-consideration of documents, since appellate authority duly considered materials but found insufficient invoice-wise correlation, and no breach of natural justice, jurisdictional error, or mala fides was established, writ remedy could not be entertained and statutory appeal before GSTAT was proper course
Orissa High Court
Where appellate authority rejected appeal as time barred by incorrectly computing limitation period under section 107 despite appeal being filed within condonable period, such rejection was unsustainable and matter was liable to be remanded for consideration of delay condonation request
Meghalaya High Court
Where BOT (Annuity) road construction concessionaire challenged SCN and OIO alleging that GST demand on annuity post launch commercial operation of project and sought writ on grounds including jurisdiction and constitutional invalidity, since core disputes related to classification, exemption and composite supply, determination of which required determination of mixed question of facts and law and no grave jurisdictional or natural justice breaches were shown, writ petition was not maintainable and statutory appeal would be an efficacious alternate remedy. GST: Where petitioner, executing BOT (Annuity) Jorabat–Shillong NH-40 project, challenged DGGI and CGST officers’ jurisdiction to issue and adjudicate demand for GST on annuity, both Additional Director-DGGI and Additional Commissioner of CGST-Shillong were Proper Officers appointed and empowered under relevant notifications and statute to act under Sections 73 and 74; so jurisdictional challenge to their actions would fail
Supreme Court
SLP dismissed against impugned order of High Court that where assessees filed writ petitions despite statutory remedy of appeal being available before Appellate Authority under section 107, such writ petitions were not maintainable and stood disposed with liberty granted to assessees to pursue appeals and raise all legal or factual grounds before Appellate Authority for adjudication on merits
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Where assessee filed appeal with one-day delay beyond condonable period due to sister's death and Appellate Authority rejected it as time- barred, though statute restricts condonation to one month, extraordinary writ power can remedy gross injustice, so delay was condoned, rejection order set aside and appeal restored for decision on merits to avoid harshness