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>GST appeals beyond time limit allowed under Article 226 despite Appellate Authority's correct rejection</h1> <h3>M/s Vasudeva Engineering, M/s. LNM Fire, M/s Yellow Lilly Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., M/s. A One Trader, M/s. Radhe Enterprises, FPI Auto Parts India Private Limited, M/s Himalyan Ply Boards, Sukhbir Singh, M/s Mukesh Enterprises, M/s Kbeera Hydraulic Engineers Private Limited, M/s Tricool India Gurugram, M/s Sai Furnace and Technologies, M/s Baba Chhunni Trading Co., M/s Sadhu Ram, Sunita Rani, Safle Network Private Limited and Kamal Arora. Versus The Union of India and others, State of Haryana and others, State of Punjab and others.</h3> M/s Vasudeva Engineering, M/s. LNM Fire, M/s Yellow Lilly Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., M/s. A One Trader, M/s. Radhe Enterprises, FPI Auto Parts India Private ... Issues:1. Interpretation of provisions under Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 regarding the time limit for filing appeals.2. Authority of the Appellate Authority to reject appeals filed beyond the prescribed time period.3. Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 to condone delay in filing appeals.4. Balancing relief to businessmen with the need for finality in decisions regarding GST registration cancellation.5. Whether filing an appeal within the prescribed time limit is a prerequisite for hearing an appeal under Section 107 of the Act.Analysis:1. The judgment addresses 17 writ petitions involving a common issue regarding the legality of the Appellate Authority's rejection of appeals filed after the time period specified in the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioners had paid the pre-deposit for the appeal but filed beyond the statutory limitation period, which could not be condoned under the Act. The Appellate Authority's rejection of the appeals was deemed legal, citing the provisions of the Act. However, the High Court noted precedents where it exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 to condone delays in specific cases.2. The Court referred to a Supreme Court case highlighting the importance of pre-deposit and the power of the High Court to intervene under Article 226. It emphasized that while the Appellate Authority must adhere to the Act's provisions, the High Court retains the authority to consider appeals on their merits, irrespective of delay or limitation issues. This underscores the balance between statutory provisions and the court's discretionary powers.3. The judgment underscores the purpose of the Act in providing relief to businessmen facing wrongful demands and the importance of ensuring an effective remedy for aggrieved parties. It notes the cascading effects of GST registration cancellations on other businesses and highlights the need for a balance between finality in decisions and providing efficacious remedies to affected individuals.4. The Court held that the power to hear appeals under Section 107 of the Act is not contingent upon filing within the prescribed time limit. It affirmed that individuals can seek the right to appeal by filing a writ petition for condonation of delay, emphasizing the importance of ensuring access to justice for aggrieved parties.5. Ultimately, the Court allowed the petitions, directing the Appellate Authority to hear and decide the appeals on their merits within a stipulated time frame. It disposed of pending applications and emphasized the importance of balancing statutory provisions with the court's discretionary powers to ensure justice and relief to affected parties.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
