TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Timeliness of appeal filed within court-granted 45-day window; rejection for delay set aside and remanded for fresh consideration</h1> Whether the appeal was barred by delay: HC applied its prior interlocutory ruling granting a 45-day window for institution of appeals; since the present ... Dismissal of appeal on the ground of delay - petitioner had preferred the appeal within the period of 45 days as per the liberty granted by this Court - HELD THAT:- Since the appeal was preferred within the window period of 45 days granted by this Court in M/S. BRUNDA INFRA PVT. LIMITED; HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV AND OTHERS VERSUS THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, HYDERABAD GST COMMISSIONERATE, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS. [2025 (1) TMI 299 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT], the appeal did not deserve to be rejected on delay. The petitioner may not be allowed to suffer for the inadvertence in not referring to the judgment of this Court in M/S. BRUNDA INFRA PVT. LIMITED, as such, the High Court is inclined to set aside the impugned rejection order dated 31.07.2025 which has been communicated in FORM GST APL 02. Therefore, the impugned rejection order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the appellate authority to consider it in accordance with law - petition disposed off by way of remand. Issues: Whether the appellate authority validly rejected the statutory appeal as time-barred when the appeal had been filed within the 45-day window granted by the High Court but the memorandum did not mention or enclose the Court's order granting that window.Analysis: The petitioner filed a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 within the 45-day period of liberty granted by this Court in earlier batch proceedings. The appellate authority rejected the appeal on the ground of delay and communicated the rejection in FORM GST APL 02, while the procedure for rejecting an appeal for delay contemplates use of FORM GST APL 04. The petitioner's memorandum did not refer to or enclose the prior judgment that created the 45-day window. Having regard to the Court's earlier direction permitting appeals within 45 days to be considered on merits and the facts that the appeal was filed within that window and the omission to enclose the judgment was inadvertent, the matter requires reconsideration on merits rather than summary rejection for delay. The appellate authority should be given an opportunity to consider an application enclosing the Court's order and to decide the question of delay and admissibility in accordance with law.Conclusion: The impugned rejection order dated 31.07.2025 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the appellate authority to consider the appeal on merits after permitting the petitioner to file an application enclosing the Court's judgment; outcome is in favour of the assessee.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
