Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, RAJESH SHANKAR
ESH Ispat Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax & Central Excise, Central Revenue Building – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J. (Oral)
1. The instant writ petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive relief:-
“for directing the respondent no. 2. the Commissioner (Appeal) to accept the appeal which the petitioners now intend to file under section 107(1) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, against the order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST & CX Hqrs, Ranchi, as the same stands beyond the statutory limit as prescribed under section 107(1) of CGST Act, considering the extra-ordinary circumstances of the petitioners preventing him to file the appeal, by condoning the delay of about 2 months 10 days.
OR/In Alternative For quashing of the order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the respondent no. 3 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition), as the same has been passed without proper application of mind and without considering the entirety of the reply (undated) filed on behalf of the petitioners and duly received by the respondent office on 11.10.2023.
AND During the pendency of the present writ application, the respondents may be constrain from taking any coercive steps as against the petitioners for recovery of the alleged amount as dete
The High Court cannot entertain a writ petition filed beyond the statutory limitation period for appeals as prescribed by special legislation, reaffirming established precedents.
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....
An appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) is barred by time if not filed within the statutory period specified in the Finance Act, 1994, and requires sufficient cause for delay to be justified.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of a writ petition challenging Assessment Orders under the CST Act, considering grounds of limitation, lack of opportunity for he....
No jurisdiction to condone appeal delay beyond 120 days under EPF Act Rule 7(2); statutory limit strictly enforceable, writ court cannot interfere.
The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 excludes the application of the Limitation Act, 1963, preventing the condonation of delays beyond the statutory period for filing appeals.
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
