https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450217 The Bombay HC held that petitioner's appeal under CGST Act was within limitation period. Despite respondents' contention that order was communicated via email on 4th April 2022, court found petitioner received order on 20th September 2022 based on petitioner's letter dated 9th September 2022 stating non-receipt of order. Since appeal was filed on 20th December 2022, within three months of actual communication date, it satisfied Section 107(1) CGST Act requirements. HC set aside tribunal's order dismissing appeal as time-barred and directed respondent to decide appeal on merits. Petitioner's appeal was restored. en-us Wed, 28 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Apr 2025 14:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450217 The Bombay HC held that petitioner's appeal under CGST Act was within limitation period. Despite respondents' contention that order was communicated via email on 4th April 2022, court found petitioner received order on 20th September 2022 based on petitioner's letter dated 9th September 2022 stating non-receipt of order. Since appeal was filed on 20th December 2022, within three months of actual communication date, it satisfied Section 107(1) CGST Act requirements. HC set aside tribunal's order dismissing appeal as time-barred and directed respondent to decide appeal on merits. Petitioner's appeal was restored. Case-Laws GST Wed, 28 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450217