2021 (1) TMI 328

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....20 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [Appeals] - 6, Bengaluru, [the first respondent - for short, 'the Appellate Authority'] dismissing the petitioner's appeal under Section 107 of the Act. 2. Sri. B.G. Chidananda Urs, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's appeal under Section 107 of the Act is rejected on the ground that the appeal is filed beyond even the condonable period holding that the copy of the best Judgment order dated 10.05.2019 is served on the petitioner's registered e-mail on 10.05.2019 and in person on 14.05.2019. However, the petitioner has not received copy of the order dated 10.05.2019 on the registered e-mail, and in any event, the Appellate Authority could not have conclud....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mn of Form GST APL - 02, are not forthcoming in the impugned order dated 6.3.2020.   5. The learned Counsel furthermore justifies the petitioner's bonafides in asserting the date of service of order dated 10.05.2019 on 7.11.2019 relying upon Annexures-B & C. The learned counsel urges that the Department cancelled the petitioner's registration on 4.9.2019 (as per Annexure-B) for the reason that the prescribed returns are not filed for a continuous period of six months, and in this order of cancellation the tax dues are mentioned as 'Nil'. Subsequently, vide Annexure-C dated 24.10.2019, the cancellation of registration is revoked. The learned Counsel submits that if there was outstanding dues because of the best judgement assessment, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y for the appellate authority, while dismissing an appeal on the ground that it is filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed and the further condonable period, to decide on the limitation considering the circumstances relied upon by the parties to assert a particular date as the date of communication. 8. In the present case, the Department asserts 10/14.05.2019 and the petitioner asserts 7.11.2019 as the date of communication. The impugned order does not indicate that the appellate authority has considered the controversy in this regard. The appellate Authority has also not considered the circumstances relied upon by the petitioner to justify that the date of communication of the order as 07.11.2019. The Appellate Authority, given....