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 remits appeal rejection under CGST Act, 2017 for delay, emphasizes service verification before dismissal</h1> <h3>M/s. Vinod Kumar Jain Versus Additional Commissioner (Appeals) Of Chhattisgarh State Tax (GST) Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Joint Commissioner Of Chhattisgarh State Tax (Gst) Bilaspur, Union Of India Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance New Delhi</h3> The Court set aside the rejection of the appeal under the CGST Act, 2017, due to delay, emphasizing the need for verification of whether the order was ... Maintainability of appeal - appeal has been rejected on the ground of the same being barred by limitation - Section 107 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The appellate authority in rejecting the application for condonation of delay and as a consequence rejecting the appeal vide his impugned order dated 30.06.2020 on the ground of delay, does not seem to be proper, legal and justified. The appellate authority ought to have given a fair consideration to the contentions of the petitioner and ought to have got it verified whether the order was duly served either physically or electronically to the petitioner and only then should have taken a decision. In the absence of any such exercise and deciding the application for condonation of delay only on the basis of the pleadings, the impugned order, in the opinion of this Court, is not sustainable and the same deserves to be and is accordingly set aside. The matter stands remitted back to the appellate authority i.e. respondent no.1 to consider and decide the application of the petitioner for condonation of delay on its own merits after due verification of the facts - Petition allowed by way of remand. Issues:Challenge to rejection of appeal under CGST Act, 2017 due to limitation.Analysis:The writ petition challenged the rejection of an appeal by the petitioner firm under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, through order Annexure P-1 dated 30.06.2020, on the grounds of being time-barred. The counsel for the petitioners contended that the order under section 73(9) of the GST Act, dated 27.06.2019, was not served upon the petitioner firm, neither physically nor electronically, hindering their ability to promptly file an appeal. The petitioners argued that despite bringing this to the notice of the appellate authority, the appeal was mechanically rejected without due consideration.Subsequently, upon learning about the order passed by the assessing authority, the petitioners promptly filed an appeal before the appellate authority along with an application for condonation of delay. The appellate authority, through order dated 04.03.2020, sought an explanation from the petitioner regarding the delay in filing the appeal. The petitioners responded by explaining that the order was not physically served, nor was it electronically uploaded on their GST portal, thereby justifying the delay in filing the appeal.The State counsel highlighted the requirement for serving the order under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act upon the petitioner/assessee, emphasizing the use of electronic means for prompt service. The counsel disputed the petitioner's claim that the order was electronically uploaded on the GST portal, suggesting the need for verification of this aspect.The Court opined that the appellate authority's rejection of the application for condonation of delay and subsequent dismissal of the appeal solely on the grounds of delay was not justifiable. The Court emphasized that the appellate authority should have verified whether the order was served to the petitioner, either physically or electronically, before making a decision. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the appellate authority for a fresh consideration of the application for condonation of delay based on merits and a thorough verification of the facts.In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of, with the appellate authority directed to reconsider the petitioner's application for condonation of delay after due verification and consideration of the contentions raised by the petitioner.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
