2022 (11) TMI 899

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....78 of 2022 - -<br>GST<br>Hon&#39;ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy For Petitioner : Shri Neeladri, C. Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Shri Tushar Dhar Diwan, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Shri Maneesh Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents No.3&4 : Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Addl. A.G. ORDER 1. Aggrieved by the impugned order Annexure P/2, dated 30.09.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he stipulated 90 days time. As such, the appeal was required to be filed on 04.01.2020, however, in the instant case the petitioner establishment had preferred the appeal only on 22-26.07.2021. The appellate authority considering the unexplained inordinate delay in the filing of the appeal rejected the same vide the impugned order Annexure P/2 dated 30.09.2021 only on the ground of limitation. 3.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....entioned notification dated 29.08.2021. The said clarification issued on 06.09.2021, Annexure P/12 again was in respect of the permission that was granted to move an application for revocation of the cancellation of registration and which was extended to even those persons whose application for revocation earlier stood rejected and also in respect of those persons whose appeal also was either pend....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... justification for the delay in the filing of the appeal beyond the permissible period of limitation under the Act. 6. Further contention of the petitioner also is that the petitioner was an IBC Company and for which there was a circular No.134/04/2020-GST dated 23.03.2020 which provided that the companies under IBC the registration could not have been cancelled. 7. This circular again would not....