https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758973 The review petition failed because the earlier judgment correctly held the writ challenge to be time-barred. The Court rejected the argument that the limitation scheme under the Finance Act, 1994 should apply instead of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, finding that the petition was still filed beyond the outer period even on the petitioner's own alternative basis. It further held that the condonable extension cannot be treated as part of the original limitation period. The petitioner was left free to pursue any statutory appellate remedy, if available in law. en-us Wed, 14 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 May 2025 21:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758973 The review petition failed because the earlier judgment correctly held the writ challenge to be time-barred. The Court rejected the argument that the limitation scheme under the Finance Act, 1994 should apply instead of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, finding that the petition was still filed beyond the outer period even on the petitioner's own alternative basis. It further held that the condonable extension cannot be treated as part of the original limitation period. The petitioner was left free to pursue any statutory appellate remedy, if available in law. Case-Laws GST Wed, 14 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758973