TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1390
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4. The case of the writ petitioner is that the writ petitioner is engaged in the business of wireless networking and it is registered under the provisions contained under UPGST/CGST Act, 2017. As per the writ petitioner, it had purchased machine from wireless networking Credo 4G, valuing Rs. 26,25,000/- from M/s Brij Systems Ltd. Delhi. An e-way bill came to be prepared containing GST @ 18% to the tune of Rs. 47500/- which was generated by the supplier on 20.07.2022. The consignment in question came to be intercepted by the third respondent, Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, Mobile Squad-4, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar on 30.07.2022 on the count that part B of e-way bill was not filled by the transporter. Physical verification of the goods was done on the said date and no discrepancy was found. The third respondent on 01.08.2022 issued a notice, in Form MoV-07 on the ground that part-B of e-way bill was not filled and thereafter on 01.08.2022 itself the third respondent, Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, Mobile Squad-4, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar passed a penalty order in Form MOV-09 under Section 129(1)(a) of the Act imposing the penalty of Rs. 9,50,000/-. According to the writ pet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e writ petitioner seeks to get the delay condoned, which even otherwise is not liable to be condoned. 8. The arguments so advanced by the learned Standing Counsel has been adopted by Sri Verma and Sri Mahajan. 9. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the records carefully. 10. Facts are not in issue. It is not in issue that on 01.08.2022, the order in original came to be passed by the Adjudicating Authority and an appeal stands provided under Section 107 of the UPGST/CGST Act, 2017. The period of limitation of preferring an appeal is three months with a grace period of one month totalling to four months. Notably, the order in original came to be passed on 01.08.2022. The appeal was preferred by the writ petitioner on 03/09.01.2023. In the memo of appeal, which is at page-40 of the paper-book, relevant extract at page-45 and 46, in para-12 and 13 the following was observed:- "12. That Appellant submits that in the aforesaid matter, no Demand Order u/s 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 and a summary of the demand order in FORM GST DRC-07 has been uploaded electronically in pursuance of Rule 142(5) of CGST Rules, 2017. Therefore, Appellant vide t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....46;्र० वस्तु एवं सेवा कर अधिनियम की धारा-107 के अन्तर्गत उल्लिखित पारित आदेश के विरुद्ध आनलाइन अपील दिनांक 03.01.2023 को दाखिल की गयी है, जिसकी हार्डकॉपी कार्यालय में दिनांक 09.01.2023 को दाखिल की गयी है। जबकि धारा-107 (1) में दिये गये ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#2351;ा तथा दिनांक 26.11.2022 को ही आदेश की प्रति WHATS UP पर प्राप्त करायी गयी। जिसके पश्चात दिनांक 03.01.2023 को अपील दाखिल कर दी गयी है। अपीलार्थी का लिखित उत्तर पत्रावली पर रखा गया है। मेरे द्वारा पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध तथ्यों एवं कर नि....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....दिनांक 01.08.2022 स्पष्ट रूप से परिलक्षित हो रही है। इसके अलावा दिनांक 01.08.2022 को ही आदेश के अनुपालन में व्यापारी द्वारा अर्थदण्ड भी जमा कराया गया है। अतः अपीलार्थी द्वारा बिलम्ब के सम्बन्ध में प्रस्तुत उत्तर आधारहीन &#....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....रा अपील प्रस्तुत (Present) नहीं की जा सकी, अतिरिक्त एक माह की अवधि के भीतर अपील प्रस्तुत करने का अनुज्ञात (Allow) कर मकता है। अतः दिनांक 01.08.2022 से (तीन माह एक माह) चार माह की अवधि दिनांक 30.11.2022 को समाप्त हो गयी, जबकि अपीलार्थी द्वारा प्&#....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#2375; सम्बन्धित जो ई वे बिल प्रस्तुत किया गया, वह वैध नहीं था। प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में अपील स्तर पर भी अपीलकर्ता व्यापारी द्वारा प्रश्नगत अपील समयान्तर्गत दाखिल नहीं की गयी है। अतः प्रस्तुत अपील वस्तु एवं सेवा कर ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1;े।" 12. As a matter of fact, in para-11 and 12 of the memo of appeal, the writ petitioner, who is the appellant herein had taken the ground that the summary of the demand order in Form GST DRC-07 has not been uploaded till 26.11.2022 and the application came to be preferred for uploading of the same and the same stood uploaded on the same date and also was communicated to the writ petitioner on whatsapp. Thus according to the writ petitioner the delay is being sought to be condoned on the pretext that the Form GST DRC-07 happens to be a mandatory requirement for filing of the appeal. A copy of the application dated 26.11.2022 requesting for uploading of the Form GST DRC-07 has also been appended at 59/60 of the paper book. The said contention so raised by the writ petitioner has not been considered while deciding the appeal and rejecting the same. 13. In the opinion of the Court, once a ground is taken in a memo of appeal, then the Appellate Authority is to consider the said ground. Might be the same may be accepted or rejected. The issue herein assumes relevancy on the aspect of the matter that a coordinate Bench of this Court in Mohd. Ishak (supra) had the occ....