Limitation objection in tax proceedings failed where earlier reply remained undisposed and merits had to be examined.

An appeal against tax proceedings was not treated as time barred because the earlier intimation and the assessee's reply had not been brought to a logical conclusion. The later proceeding arose on the same alleged liability while the earlier response remained pending in substance, so the limitation objection was not decisive. The question whether the later notice had been seen on the portal became academic, and the matter was required to be examined on merits rather than rejected on a technical ground. The appellate order was set aside and the appeal restored for hearing on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal filed against the tax proceedings was liable to be rejected as time barred when the earlier intimation and reply had not been carried to a logical conclusion, and whether the matter should be decided on merits.

Analysis: The appellants had already responded to the initial intimation issued in respect of the same alleged liability, but the reply was neither considered nor finally disposed of. A subsequent proceeding was then initiated on the same basis, and the appeal against the resulting order was treated as barred by limitation. In the peculiar facts, the earlier proceeding was still pending in substance when the later proceeding was taken forward. The limitation objection was therefore not accepted as determinative, and the question whether the later notice had been noticed on the portal became academic. The matter required adjudication on merits rather than rejection on a technical ground.

Conclusion: The appeal was not time barred and was directed to be heard and decided on merits, with the appellate order set aside and the appeal restored.

---