Held - The appeal preferred by the petitioner came to be rejected on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. The issue with regard to the power of the Appellate Authority to entertain an appeal beyond the period of limitation in terms of Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [“CGST Act of 2017”] has already been considered by this Court in a batc.....

Held - In the case on hand, the ex parte summary order came to be passed on 25.07.2023. Aggrieved over the same, an appeal was belatedly preferred by the petitioner on 04.09.2024, i.e., with a delay of 285 days. Since the delay was beyond the condonable period, the said appeal was rejected by the first respondent vide impugned order dated 04.11.2024. According to the petitioner, since the summary order was passed in ex.....

Held - In the case on hand, the ex parte assessment order came to be passed on 31.08.2023. Aggrieved over the same, an appeal was belatedly preferred by the petitioner on 09.02.2024, i.e., with a delay of 72 days. Since the delay was beyond the condonnable period, the said appeal was rejected by the respondent vide impugned order dated 27.12.2024. According to the petitioner, since the asse.....

Held - Long after the expiry of the limitation, the present Writ Petitions have been filed and listed for admission. Although the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that there is no scope of entertaining the Writ Petition after the expiry of the limitation, this Court has taken consistent stand to allow the petitioner under the similar circumstances to file an appeal, subject to pre-deposit of 25% of the disputed tax. Thi.....

Held: The appellate authority refused to condone the delay of nearly two years as the power of condonation of the period in filing the appeal have put an outer limit beyond which the appellate authority cannot exercise powers.

We find no ambiguity in the order of the appellate authority as the law is somewhat settled that the moment t.....

Held - In application for condonation of delay, the petitioner has pleaded that he downloaded the order for further proceedings i.e. for filing of an appeal and in this process, there has been a delay of 95 days in filing the appeal. The petitioner has calculated the limitation from the date of order i.e. 21.07.2023. The petitioner has not disclosed the date on which the order was communicated to him, therefore, the limitation is liable to be .....