2025 (7) TMI 1652

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Respondent: Mr. Siddharth Chandrashekhar i/b Ms. Sangeeta Yadav,. PC:- 1. We heard Mr. Ranit Basu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent, at our request. 2. Petitioner's challenge is to an order dated 31 March 2025 made by Respondent No. 2 rejecting petitioner's scheme for refund under the RoDTEP scheme. 3. Mr. Basu learned co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unt/credits was void ab initio. He submitted that respondent No. 2, without going into the merits of the matter, though all submissions were made on merits, has now chosen to nonsuit the petitioner on the ground of limitation. Mr. Basu reiterated that this bar did not apply to the facts of the present case. He pointed out that representations made by the petitioner from time to time were also not ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....espite Mr. Basu's arguments, we have not been persuaded that this is the matter in which we should deviate from the practice of exhausting the alternate remedy available under the statute. 8. Most of the contentions raised by Mr. Basu relate to the merits of the matter. Such contentions are best considered by the authorities under the Act, which is more so because the powers conferred upon the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e that the impugned order was passed on 31 March 2025 and was received by the petitioner on 1 April 2025. This petition was filed on 16 May 2025, i.e, within the limitation period prescribed for instituting an appeal. Therefore, if the petitioner now institutes an appeal within two weeks from the date of uploading of this order, then the appellate authority is directed to decide the said appeal on....