TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 386
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ince common question of facts and law are involved in WRIT TAX No. - 1054 of 2025 (in short 'leading writ petition') and WRIT TAX No. - 2897 of 2025 (in short 'connected writ petition'), thus, with the consent of the parties the writ petition is being consolidated and decided by a composite order. 3. The counsel for the rival parties have made a joint statement that they do not propose to file any further affidavits thus with the consent of the parties, writ petitions are being decided at the fresh stage. 4. The case of the writ petitioner in the leading writ petition is that it is a service provider firm registered under the UPGST Act, 2017. A notice under Section 61 of the Act came to be issued by the Deputy Commissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 24 invoices and 54 bilties. The goods were moving in vehicle number NL01 AG 2780 from Delhi to Asansol, West Bengal and were only in transit through the State of U.P. The said goods were intercepted by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad, Unit-IV Meerut on 08.11.2024. However due to the mistake committed by the driver of the vehicle, a wrong envelope was handed over. On 14.11.2024, the second respondent, Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad, Unit-IV Meerut has passed the seizure order in Form MOV-06 by holding that the goods were not covered by the valid documents, a notice came to be issued by the respondent no. 2 to the driver of the vehicle to which a reply was sent by mail by the petitioner on 21.11.2024 to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the writ petitioner has submitted that the order rejecting the appeal so preferred by the writ petitioner in the leading and connected writ petitions cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the writ petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Submission is that in the leading writ petition against the ex-parte order dated 22.04.2024 passed by the original authority, the writ petitioner had preferred a rectification application which was maintainable under Section 161 of the Act on 07.05.2024 within limitation which was rejected on 18.09.2024 and within the period of 10 days, the writ petitioner preferred the appeal before the first respondent in the leading writ petition on 28.09.2024 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h so according to him, the writ petitioner is entitled to benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act while filing appeal in the connected writ petition. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully. 13. Facts are not in issue. It is not in issue that in the leading writ petition against the order passed by the original authority on 24.04.2024, the writ petitioner preferred an application under Section 161 of the Act on 07.05.2024 for rectification. The said application was rejected by the original authority on 18.09.2024 and the statutory appeal came to be preferred along with delay condonation application on 28.09.2024 which had been rejected by virtue of the order dated 27.10.2024 passed b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y have been done in the present case, the application of the underlying principle of Section 14 Limitation Act, may not be examined with a microscope, any further. To the extent that application is filed 'bona fide' in 'good faith' and is pursued, that principle would apply, without doubt. The only exception to that principle may be-where the application seeking rectification of a mistake is itself filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 161 of the Act. There no such benefit may arise. Here, that application was filed within the time prescribed under the said provisions. 31. To the extent, respondent no. 3 rejected that application, we find occasion arose to the petitioner to claim benefit of ....