TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the rejection of the petitioner's waiver application under Section 128A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on the ground of delay was valid, and whether the application filed after the notified date could still be considered on merits.
Analysis: The notification issued under Section 128A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 fixed 31.03.2025 as the date by which the tax dues had to be paid, and provided that an application under the relevant sub-rules may be made within three months from that date. The Court held that the use of the word "may" was enabling and directory, not mandatory. On that basis, the department was not justified in treating the three-month period as an absolute bar and rejecting the application solely as belated. The rejection was therefore found to be legally unsustainable.
Conclusion: The rejection of the waiver application was quashed, and the petitioner was entitled to have the application considered in accordance with law.
Final Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded on the legality of the rejection of the waiver request, and the matter was directed to be reconsidered on merits, with the related GST proceedings kept in abeyance until such consideration.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory provision confers a benefit using the expression "may" and does not impose an express mandatory bar, the provision is directory and cannot be applied as an inflexible time-limit to defeat consideration of an otherwise eligible application.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
