SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, PARTHA SARTHY
Chunnu Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Manoj Kumar Keshri.
For the Respondent: Vikash Kumar.

JUDGMENT :

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. The petitioner is before this Court raising a challenge against an assessment order which was not properly appealed against. The assessment order was passed on 06.02.2021 and an appeal against the same was filed on 09.12.2022, grossly delayed. The assessment order is produced at Annexure-7 and the appellate order rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay is produced at Annexure-8.

2. The petitioner alleges that the assessment order was itself ex-parte and the returns could not be uploaded since the Accountant was not fully conversant with the practice and procedure under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“BGST Act” hereafter).

3. We have to immediately notice that the assessment order is for the assessment year 2019-2020 and there cannot be a contention raised that it was during the transition period that the assessee failed to upload the return. The petitioner also claimed that there is an excess amount of tax paid which is liable to be refunded.

4. The appellate order specifically noticed Section 107 of the BGST Act which permits an appeal to be filed within three months and also apply for delay condonation with satisfactory reasons with

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top