TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Writ petitions dismissed for incomplete filing; Manual appeals allowed within 4 weeks;</h1> <h3>Kaushal Kadel, Proprietor of M/s. Richmond Industrial Versus State of West Bengal & Ors.</h3> The High Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the adjudication order due to incomplete supply of text. The petitioner was allowed to file an ... Principles of natural justice - full text of the order has not been supplied to the petitioner and only summary of the order has been supplied - requirement of full text of the order, for e-filing of the appeal - HELD THAT:- Division Bench of this Court in M/S. MJUNCTION SERVICES LIMITED AND ANOTHER VERSUS THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, STATE TAX, LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT, WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS [2021 (9) TMI 1423 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] has held that hardcopy of the appeal filed by the appellant shall be considered to have been filed within the limitation and it will be heard and decided on merits. No relief in these writ petitions against the impugned order of adjudication except giving liberty to the petitioner to file appeal in Hardcopy and manually and if such appeal is filed within four weeks from date, the respondent shall consider the same as to have been filed within the limitation and shall hear and decide the appeal on merits by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Petition disposed off. Issues:Challenge to impugned order of adjudication due to incomplete supply of order text, requirement of full text for e-filing appeal, acceptance of manual appeal filing, consideration of appeal filing within limitation period.Analysis:The petitioner challenged an order of adjudication for not receiving the full text, only a summary, essential for e-filing the appeal, which was mandatory. The respondent authority later provided the full text and agreed to accept a manually filed appeal, citing a Division Bench order allowing hardcopy appeals to be considered timely and heard on merits. The judge, considering the submissions and the precedent, declined relief but granted liberty to file the appeal manually within four weeks, treating it as timely filed and ensuring a hearing opportunity.Conclusion:The High Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the adjudication order due to incomplete supply of text, allowing the petitioner to file an appeal manually within four weeks, relieving the respondent from raising the limitation issue, based on the Division Bench's ruling regarding hardcopy appeals.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
