Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the rejection of the first appeals as time-barred required interference in view of the subsequent notification enabling a special procedure for filing appeals, and whether the matters should be remanded to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration.
Analysis: The writ petitions challenged the appellate orders that rejected the appeals solely on limitation. During pendency, a notification under section 148 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was issued, creating a special procedure for taxable persons who could not file appeals within the period under section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 or whose appeals were rejected only on limitation. The notification permitted filing of appeals within the prescribed extended period and contemplated application of the procedural rules governing such appeals. In light of that statutory development, the limitation-based rejection could not stand and the controversy had to be reconsidered by the appellate forum in accordance with law.
Conclusion: The impugned appellate orders were set aside and the matters were remanded to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Final Conclusion: The petitioners obtained relief against the limitation-based rejection, and the appeals were directed to be reconsidered on the prescribed procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a later statutory notification creates a special procedure for filing appeals in cases rejected solely on limitation, the limitation-based rejection of such appeals cannot be sustained and remand for reconsideration in accordance with the notified procedure is warranted.