Back
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
Brand Protection Services Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.—This writ application has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:—
“(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing of the Appellate Order in form APL-02 bearing reference no. ZD100524014826Q dated 18.05.2024 along with a detailed Order bearing Memo No 529 dated 18.05.2024 (Annexure P/4 series) issued by the respondent no. 3, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner under section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “CGST Act, 2017” for short) or the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the BGST Act, 2017 for short) in Form GST APL-01 on 26.04.2024(Annexure P/3 Series), against the impugned Demand Order passed by respondent no 2, u/s 73(9) of the BGST/CGST Act, 2017 dated 27.12.2023, along with its summary order in Form DRC-07 bearing Reference No. ZD1012230343049, demanding a tax of Rs. 21,21,878/-, interest under Section 50 of Rs. 77,97,004, and penalty of Rs. 8,12,188/- for the tax period July 2017-March 2018 (Annexure P/2) has been rejected on the solitary ground of limitation.
(ii) For further issu
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of the CGST Act prevail over the provisions of the Limitation Act, and there is no power to entertain an appeal beyond the pres....
The interpretation of 'month' in legal contexts refers to calendar months, impacting limitation periods for appeals.
Assessment – Condonation of Delay in filing Appeal - Appellate authority is not empowered to condone the delay beyond the aggregate period of limitation - statutory appeal was barred by limitation, t....
The appellate authority under the APGST Act cannot condone delays beyond the one-month limit specified in Section 107(4), excluding broader provisions of the Limitation Act.
The appeal was within the extended limitation period, and the Appellate Authority erred in dismissing it as time-barred without considering the merits.
The principles of Section 14 of the Limitation Act allow for exclusion of time spent on bona fide applications, thereby justifying the filing of the appeal within the limitation period despite prior ....
The issuance of the Show Cause Notice was timely under Section 73 of the CGST Act, and the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity for a hearing, thereby validating the demand order.
The court affirmed that while the CGST Act imposes strict limitations on appeals, such limitations do not apply in writ proceedings, allowing for the restoration of the appeal based on merits.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
