Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, BASANT BALAJI, JJ
AHAMED USMAN – Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-1 SPECIAL CIRCLE, STATE GST DEPARTMENT – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant challenges a judgment regarding a rectification application. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court observes the mandatory nature of the rectification time limit. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. confirmation of the learned single judge's findings on the appeal. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. appeal is ultimately dismissed with no further liberty. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN,J The appellant challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.4468/2024.
2. As evident from the pleadings on record, the appellant questioned the correctness of Ext.P1 order issued by the 1st respondent; but affirms that he has also filed an application for rectification of the same, albeit after six years from the end of the relevant assessment year.
3. We notice that the prayer of the appellant is that, either this Court set aside Ext.P1; or that the rectification application aforementioned be directed to be considered by the Competent Authority within a time frame.
4. However, the learned Single Judge, after alluding to the mandatory character of Section 39(9) of the CGST Act (for short 'the Act'), has concluded that an application for rectification filed after six years, can never
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
