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 Appeal Procedural Relief: Condonation of Delay Granted, Case Remanded for Merit-Based Review Within Twelve Weeks</h1> <h3>Shaileshbhai Kanjibhai Patel S/O Kanjibhai Patel Versus State Tax Officer & Ors., Union Of India, Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs, Chief Commissioner Of State Tax, Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) -11.</h3> HC ruled on a GST appeal procedural matter, directing the Appellate Authority to consider the petitioner's time spent in court as bona fide and allowing ... Constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) - ultra vires to Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The respondent-Appellate Authority is directed to consider the time spent by the petitioner before this Court as bona-fide to condone delay in preferring the Appeal pursuant to the order of this Court dated 25.06.2024 passed in Special Civil Application No. 9139 of 2024. The impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 11.12.2024 is therefore quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority to decide the Appeal on merits as the delay in preferring the Appeal is to be condoned and the Appeal shall not be rejected on the ground of delay in view of this order. Petition disposed off by way of remand. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe primary legal issues considered in this judgment include:Whether Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) is ultra vires to Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.Whether the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal issued against the petitioner should be quashed.Whether the period mentioned under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act is mandatory or directory, and if the Appellate Authority has the power to condone delays beyond the additional period of 30 days.Whether the time spent by the petitioner in pursuing remedies before the High Court should be considered bona fide for the purpose of condoning delay in filing an appeal.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Constitutionality of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST ActThe petitioner argued that Section 16(2)(c) is unconstitutional as it violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law and the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business, respectively. The Court did not provide a detailed analysis or ruling on this issue within the judgment, focusing instead on procedural aspects and the appeal process.2. Quashing of OrdersThe petitioner sought to quash the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. The Order-in-Original required the reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) due to transactions with a dealer found to be bogus. The Order-in-Appeal was dismissed due to a delay in filing. The Court focused on the procedural aspect, particularly the delay in filing the appeal, rather than the substantive merits of the orders themselves.3. Mandatory vs. Directory Nature of Section 107(4) of the CGST ActThe petitioner contended that the time limit under Section 107(4) should be considered directory, allowing for the condonation of delay beyond the additional 30 days if justified. The Court did not directly address this contention in terms of legal interpretation but instead provided a practical resolution by directing the Appellate Authority to consider the time spent in court as bona fide, effectively allowing for the condonation of delay.4. Condonation of DelayThe Court addressed the issue of delay by directing the Appellate Authority to consider the time spent by the petitioner in pursuing the matter before the High Court as bona fide. This direction effectively allowed the condonation of delay, enabling the appeal to be heard on its merits.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court held that the Appellate Authority must consider the time spent by the petitioner before the High Court as bona fide for the purpose of condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The Court quashed the Order-in-Appeal dated 11.12.2024 and remanded the matter back to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on its merits. The Court emphasized that the appeal should not be rejected on the grounds of delay due to this order.The Court directed that this exercise should be completed within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the order, ensuring a timely resolution of the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
