TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1867
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rincipal place of business at Bangalore. On 24.07.2023, certain goods which were in transit to Calicut, at the instance of the petitioner were intercepted by the officers and proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act were initiated. Ultimately the same culminated in Ext.P1 order, under Section 129(3) of the Act. Even though the petitioner had grievances with respect to the findings in Ext.P1, and intended to file appeal, he remitted the amount payable under Ext.P1, under protest. 2. Thereafter he took steps to file appeal online, as contemplated under the Act and the Rules, but the same was not accepted by the system, in view of the fact that, in the Form GST APL-01, the petitioner was required to indicate the disputed tax, interest ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s submitted by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs: "It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the records leading to issue of Ext. P1 Order by First Respondent u/s 129(3) of the Act as also Ext. P6 Order passed by Third Respondent, peruse the same, hear arguments on behalf of the Petitioner AND A. Issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARI quashing Ext. P1 order passed by First Respondent: B. In the alternative, Issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARI quashing Ext. P6 order passed by Third Respondent: C. Issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing Third Respondent to restore the appeal to its files, consider the same and dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the Petitioner: D. Issue a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....use, the petitioner remitted the amount under protest, he was deprived of the opportunity to invoke the statutory remedy. The denial of that statutory remedy was not attributable to the petitioner at all, but solely because of the shortcomings in the system provided by the respondents for filing the appeal. Ext.P2 would indicate that, the petitioner made an attempt to file an appeal within the statutory period and he was prevented from doing the same only because of the reason that, the petitioner had paid the entire amount demanded as per the impugned order. Even though the said aspect was highlighted by the petitioner before the authorities concerned in Ext. P3, it was not addressed by the authorities. 7. During the course of hearing, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tained by the respondents is not updated so as to address a situation of this nature, which shows the laches on the part of the respondents. 9. As far as the Ext.P6 order is concerned, under no circumstances the same can be treated as a justifiable one. Of course it is true that, technically the 3rd respondent was justified in adopting the view that the appeal is time barred, as the same was submitted after the expiry of four months, which was beyond the condonable period of delay. However, there was no attempt to consider the circumstances which prompted the petitioner to submit an appeal beyond the statutory period and the same ought to have been taken into account. Evidently, it was impossible for the petitioner to submit an appeal wi....