2023 (8) TMI 5

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ESHPANDE, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajan Mishra and Mr Vibhav Amonkar, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. D. Pangam, Advocate General with Ms Maria Simone Correia, Additional Government Advocate. ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER M.S. SONAK, J.) 1. Heard Mr Rajan Mishra with Mr Vibhav Amonkar for the petitioner. Mr D. Pangam learned Advocate General appears along with Ms Maria Simone Correia ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was also made by the impugned assessment order dated 27.04.2017. The CST appeal was filed in the prescribed format but the VAT appeal was not filed in the prescribed format. There is considerable confusion because it appears that the petitioner filed a consolidated appeal on the impugned common order dated 27.04.2017 regarding the CST and VAT assessment. 5. There is no dispute that the appeal i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ord supports Mr Mishra's contention that at least the formatted appeal was placed on record on 15.04.2019. However, nothing is on record to show that the appellate authority pointed out this error to the petitioners on 19.03.2019. Still, this does not make a significant difference because the petitioner filed an appeal (though not in the prescribed format ) within limitation. 8. On 11.09.20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er dated 24.09.2020. 10. From the record, we are satisfied that the petitioner had instituted the appeal against the common assessment order (CST and VAT) dated 27.04.2017 and 12.07.2017. This was admittedly within the prescribed period of limitation. However, because of the confusion due to the filing of the consolidated appeal, the VAT appeal may not have been in the prescribed format. Theref....