M/S Marshall Construction vs. The Union Of INDIA And 6 Ors
Facts
M/s Marshall Construction, represented by its sole proprietor, filed an interlocutory application before the Gauhati High Court seeking modification of a previous order dated March 31, 2023, passed in WP(C) No. 1843/2023. The petitioner's counsel argued that while the previous order granted liberty to approach the appropriate forum by filing an appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, it inadvertently omitted to allow the condonation of delay in filing such an appeal. The petitioner sought condonation of the delay. The respondents, represented by the GST authorities, stated they had no objection to the prayer.
Held
The Court held that the previous order dated March 31, 2023, in WP(C) No. 1843/2023, had closed the writ petition with liberty to file an appeal before the competent authority. However, it had not considered that the appeal might be barred by limitation under the Finance Act, 1994. In view of this oversight and guided by the principles of equity, the Court found it appropriate to allow the applicant/petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of filing an appeal. The Court directed that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and the appeal should be disposed of on its merits by the concerned authority. The interlocutory application was accordingly disposed of.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should allow the petitioner/applicant to file an appeal before the competent authority, condoning the delay that has occurred in filing the appeal, in light of the previous order granting liberty to approach the appropriate forum? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of the previous Court order and principles of equity). Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the previous order dated March 31, 2023, while permitting an appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, failed to address the issue of condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the Court should now grant permission to file the appeal by condoning the delay. Revenue's Argument: The revenue/respondents stated they had no objection to the prayer made by the applicant's counsel.
Sections Cited
Section 85
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010085072023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1035/2023 M/S MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION, REP. BY SHRI JATIN GOGOI, SOLE PROPRIETOR, AGED 59 YEARS GOLAI NO. 1, P.O. DIGBOI, PIN- 786171, DIST.- TINSUKIA, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPTT. OF REVENUE, CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI- 110001 2:THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GST HQRS GUWAHATI GST BHAWAN KEDAR ROAD MACHKHOWA GUWAHATI- 781001 ASSAM 3:JOINT COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX MILAN NAGAR F LANE P.O. C.R. BUILDING DIBRUGARH- 786003 4:THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Page No.# 2/3 TINSUKIA DIVISION DURGABARI ROAD P.O.- TINSUKIA- 786123 5:THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX TEZPUR DIVISION S.C. ROAD TEZPUR- 784001 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT (
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Gauhati High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.