Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, BASANT BALAJI, JJ
SHAZIL SHARIFF – Appellant
Versus
THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal challenged on statutory grounds and status. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. response on the appeal's status and issues. (Para 3) |
| 3. clarification on limitations as non-finding. (Para 5) |
| 4. closure of appeal without merits discussion. (Para 6 , 7) |
JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.
We find this Appeal - filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in WP(C)No.40805/2025 - to be wholly incapable of being entertained at this stage because, it is conceded expressly by the learned counsel for the appellant – Sri.Muhammed Shafi M, that the statutory Appeal which had been pending at the time when this Court delivered judgment has been subsequently dismissed.
2. However, the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Single Judge has, in the impugned judgment, virtually gone to the extent of saying that Ext.P6 Appeal is not maintainable because of delay; and consequently, that the competent statutory Authority has dismissed it on the same ground.
3. Sri.V.Gireesh Kumar – learned Central Government Counsel, in response, submitted that he does not have instructions whether Ext.P6 has been rejected; but that, at the time when the judgment was delive
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
