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>Court permits review petition, grants extension to address delay concerns ensuring fair opportunity</h1> <h3>M/s. SWARNASHILPI Versus ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER STATE GST DEPARTMENT, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (TAXES), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY REVENUE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OFREVENUE, NEW DELHI AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAXES DEPARTMENT, 3RD FLOOR, TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM</h3> M/s. SWARNASHILPI Versus ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER STATE GST DEPARTMENT, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY ... Issues:Challenge to assessment order, availability of alternative remedy, delay in pursuing remedy before appellate authority, review petition.Analysis:1. The petitioner challenged the assessment order in W.P.(C) No.13090 of 2018. The Government Pleader pointed out the availability of an alternative remedy. The petitioner's counsel mentioned the absence of an appeal mechanism under the Goods and Services Tax regime initially. However, later, it was informed that the appellate forums were functioning, with the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) as the first appellate authority. The writ petition was disposed of in line with an earlier judgment on 23rd October 2018.2. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a review petition, citing a delay that occurred while pursuing the remedy before the Court. The petitioner's counsel emphasized the need for the Court to acknowledge and address this delay, as the earlier judgment did not mention it. Both the petitioner's counsel and the Government Pleader were heard on this matter.3. The Court recognized the genuineness of the petitioner's apprehension regarding the delay. In modification of the previous judgment, the Court held that if the petitioner approaches the appellate authority within two weeks, the delay would be condoned. This decision was made to address the concerns raised by the petitioner and ensure a fair opportunity to pursue the remedy.4. Consequently, the review petition was allowed, and the judgment under review was modified to accommodate the petitioner's request regarding the delay in pursuing the remedy before the appellate authority. The Court's decision aimed to provide a balanced and just resolution to the issues raised by the petitioner during the legal proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
