2023 (10) TMI 1331

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short "the CGST Act") on the ground that the Appeal is delayed by 59 days and therefore, the same cannot be admitted. 2. BRIEF FACTS ARE AS UNDER :- The Petitioner is engaged in the business of supplying of floating, submersible drilling and production platforms, dredgers and supply of crew-members. The Petitioner is registered under the CGST Act. 3. On 23rd July, 2021, the Petitioner received a notice for the period July, 2017 to March, 2018 intimating discrepancies in the return. The said notice was replied on 23rd July, 2021 itself by giving detailed reasons refutting the alleged discrepancy. On 31st December, 2021, Respondent issued an intimation of tax ascertained as being payable under Sec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....I-O having been passed by taking the date of O-I-O for purpose of limitation. 5. Respondent No. 3 issued a notice on 4th November, 2022 seeking explanation on the delay of 59 days in filing the Appeal as per Section 107(1) read with Section 107(4) of the CGST Act. The said delay appears to have been calculated by taking the date of O-IO 28th April, 2022 as the starting point of limitation. The Petitioner filed detailed submissions vide letters dated 14th November 2022 and 24th November 2022 giving the detailed reasoning as to why there is no delay in filing the Appeal. The Petitioner also relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in support of its contention to the case of Mrs. Nirmala Menon vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) Wr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eing no delay, which have not been considered in the impugned order passed by Respondent No. 3 and therefore, the impugned order dated 12th December, 2022 is required to be set aside. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the the Respondent submitted that the O-I-O have been served and the limitation period would start from the date of uploading the said order and therefore, Respondent No. 3 was justified in dismissing the Appeal as time barred. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondent, we are of the view that the impugned order dated 12th December, 2022 passed by Respondent No. 3 is certainly bereft of any reasons. Respondent No. 3 has not considered the written submissions filed by the Petitioner date....