Punit Kumar Choubey vs The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Patna & Ors.
Facts (Background):
The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 10.12.2021 passed under Section 73(9) of the BGST Act determining excess input tax credit. Notices were issued through the GST portal and reminders were sent, but the petitioner did not respond. The petitioner later filed an appeal with delay, which was rejected as time-barred, and thereafter approached the High Court.
Court Decision:
The Court held that the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 must be filed within three months with a further condonable period of one month. Even considering the extension of limitation granted by the Supreme Court in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, the appeal should have been filed by 28.06.2022, but it was filed only on 10.07.2022.
The Court held that when the statute prescribes a specific period for condonation of delay, neither the appellate authority nor the High Court under Article 226 can extend the limitation further. As the petitioner failed to avail the statutory appellate remedy within the prescribed period and no jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice was established, the writ petition was dismissed.
Cases Referred by Court: In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 (Supreme Court of India ; State of H.P. & Ors. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited & Anr., (2005) 6 SCC 499
Other Case Law
Ambika Traders Through Proprietor Gaurav Gupta vs Additional Commissioner, Adjudication DGGSTI, CGST Delhi North
Fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit – Determination of tax under Sections 74, 16, 50, 122 and 155 of the CGST Act, 2017 – consolidated show cause notice for multiple financial years – denial of cross-examination and challenge to adjudication or
Facts (Background):A search was conducted on 03.08.2021 at the premises of the p...
Read MoreVishwa Mitter vs. O. P. Poddar and Others,
Competency of a complainant to file a criminal complaint under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 read with Section 420 IPC, and whether a Magistrate can refuse to take cognizance on the ground that the complainant is not the
The appellant, Vishwa Mitter, was a dealer in beedies and the constituted attorn...
Read MoreMarfani Steel Impex, through its proprietor Mohammed Irfan Marfani vs The Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax & Central Excise, Nagpur & Ors.
Show Cause Notice – Clubbing of multiple financial years under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 – validity of consolidated show cause notice for different tax periods.
Facts (Background):The petitioner challenged the show cause notice dated 30.05.2...
Read More