2025 (2) TMI 342

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Ray, Mr. T.M. Siddiqui, Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee, Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty and Mr. Saptak Sanyal Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have preferred an appeal after payment of the whole amount of disputed tax. So the question of predeposit at the time of filing of the appeal does not arise. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have failed to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n a thorough examination of the documents presented to the Court and taking into account the arguments put forth by the parties, this Court allows the writ petition as statutory provisions on limitation should be interpreted liberally in cases where genuine hardships are demonstrated, particularly, in light of judicial precedents supporting such relief. In S. K. Chakraborty & Sons Vs. Union of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of adjudication. Any interference with the order of adjudication either by the Appellate Authority or by the Revisional Authority would have an effect on the defaulter/notice. Section 107 does not have a non-obstante clause rendering Section 29(2) of the Act of 1963 non-applicable. In absence of specific exclusion of the Section 5 of the Act 1963 it would be improper to read an implied exclusion ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....acknowledges missing the extended deadline under Notification No. 53/2023 due to unawareness of the earlier appeal's rejection, the delay was not deliberate. Moreover, the appellate authority rejected the appeal on May 30, 2024, citing limitation and non- payment of the required pre-deposit of 12.5% of the disputed tax. However, the disputed tax amount of Rs. 32,67,900.00/- (Rs.1 6,33,950.00/- ....