https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89971 The HC allowed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging dismissal of an appeal on limitation grounds. The petitioner-assessee filed an appeal on 01.07.2024 against an order communicated on 01.04.2024. The Appellate Authority erroneously dismissed the appeal as time-barred, holding the two-month limitation period expired on 31.05.2024 and extended period on 30.06.2024. The HC held that under Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, the communication date 01.04.2024 must be excluded from limitation calculation, making the appeal timely filed within the extended three-month period under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act. Despite availability of statutory appeal remedy to CESTAT under Section 86, the HC entertained the writ petition as it involved a pure question of law without disputed facts. The impugned dismissal order was quashed. en-us Tue, 01 Jul 2025 08:48:05 +0530 Tue, 01 Jul 2025 08:48:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89971 The HC allowed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging dismissal of an appeal on limitation grounds. The petitioner-assessee filed an appeal on 01.07.2024 against an order communicated on 01.04.2024. The Appellate Authority erroneously dismissed the appeal as time-barred, holding the two-month limitation period expired on 31.05.2024 and extended period on 30.06.2024. The HC held that under Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, the communication date 01.04.2024 must be excluded from limitation calculation, making the appeal timely filed within the extended three-month period under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act. Despite availability of statutory appeal remedy to CESTAT under Section 86, the HC entertained the writ petition as it involved a pure question of law without disputed facts. The impugned dismissal order was quashed. Highlights Service Tax Tue, 01 Jul 2025 08:48:05 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89971