Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Shekhar B.Saraf, Praveen Kumar Giri
Atlantis Intelligence Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the service of the order impacts the limitation period. (Para 3) |
| 2. the timeframe for filing appeals is strictly governed by the statute. (Para 8 , 10) |
| 3. writ jurisdiction cannot supersede statutory provisions on appeals. (Para 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT :
Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
1. Heard Ms. Anjali Jha Manish, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Gaurav Mahajan, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Mr. Arvind Kumar Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order in original dated January 1, 2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Division -I, NOIDA. The prayers made out in the above writ petition are delineated below:
"A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the Order In Original bearing No.84/AC/CGST/Div-I/N/2024-25 dated January 31, 2025 passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Division-I, Noida; and/or.
B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the Show Caus
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 the admissibility of a writ petition challenging Assessment Orders under the CST Act, considering grounds of limitation, lack of opportunity for he....
When there is an alternate remedy available, judicial prudence demands that court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under constitutional provisions.
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....
No jurisdiction to condone appeal delay beyond 120 days under EPF Act Rule 7(2); statutory limit strictly enforceable, writ court cannot interfere.
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.
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
