2025 (11) TMI 294

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it. 3. The adjudication order passed under Section 74 of the said 2017 Act is dated January 7, 2025 and therefore an appeal preferred thereagainst would have been within time, if the same had been filed within April 7, 2025. The petitioner, however, lodged the appeal before the appellate authority on April 26, 2025, that is beyond the period of three months specified in Section 107(1) of the 2017 Act but within the condonable period of one month in terms of Section 107(4) of the said Act of 2017. The petitioner while preferring such appeal did not put in any pre-deposit since the order impugned before the appellate authority only determined interest and penalty payable by the petitioner. It is the petitioner's case that as the petitioner....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pugned order, as is admitted by him; and (b) A sum equal to ten per cent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute arising from the said order, [subject to a maximum of twenty-five crore rupees,] in relation to which the appeal has been filed: [Provided that no appeal shall be filed against an order under sub-section (3) of section 129, unless a sum equal to twenty-five per cent of the penalty has been paid by the appellant]" 6. It is evident from the above that there was no requirement for making any pre-deposit in cases where the appeal was carried against an order pertaining only to penalty and there being no amount of tax in dispute. 7. It is well settled that right to prefer appeal is a substantive right. It is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....". The above proviso has taken effect from October 01, 2025. 9. The aforesaid provision would, however, clearly not apply to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the same was not there in the statute book at the time when the appeal was preferred. In fact, it was not there even on the date the appellate order was passed. 10. Insofar as the second ground is concerned, the Appellate Authority has recorded that the appellant has not filed separate application for condonation of delay showing sufficient cause for delay. However, the petitioner demonstrates that such application was filed and a copy thereof is appearing at pages 60 to 62 of the writ petition. 11. Be that as it may, without going into the aforesaid controversy, t....