M/S.Mastek Engineering Private Limited vs. The Appellant Authority And Additional Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following; ORDER
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION N0.4517 of 2024 ORDER; Heard Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax for the respondents and perused the material on record. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the present writ petition is being decided finally at this stage. The petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled by order dated 13.06.2023 after show cause notice dated 09.01.2023. The petitioner filed appeal under Section 107 of Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘APGST Act’) 21.12.2023 which has been rejected vide order dated 12.02.2024 impugned in this petition, at the admission stage the ground that it was condonable statutory period.
The appeal was beyond the condonable period by 73 days per the impugned appellate order. Learned counsel for the petitioner disputing the same submits that the delay after 2. 3. on on barred by limitation and beyond the 4. as 2 excluding condonable period by the Appellate Authority is 69 days.
Section 107 of APGST Act provides for the appeal to be filed within a period of limitation of three months from the date order appealed against is communicated to the appellant. As per sub-section (4) of Section 107, the Appellate Authority may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting
the appeal within the said period of limitation, allow it to be presented within a further period of one month. The appellate authority under the statutory provision has no power to condone the delay beyond the condonable Consequently, the petitioner’s appeal was rejected.
The cause of the delay in not preferring the appeal within the statutory period of limitation as also the condonable period which the decision on or statutory period. so stated was that the petitioner’s ill health, difficulty in walking and being under the Doctor’s Supervision. In support thereof Doctor s Certificate was filed as also the petitioner’s affidavit.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in the case of W.P.No. 17349 of 2023 decided on 04.08.2023, i which a Coordinate Bench of this Court, after finding that the in 3 sufficient cause was shown to condone the delay in filing the appeal, remitted the matter to the appellate authority, by imposing cost of Rs.20,000/-. The Appellate Authority in the impugned order did not dispute the cause of delay nor found that such cause was not sufficient. There was proof filed in support of the cause for not preferring the appeal in time. The rejection is only because beyond condonable period, the delay could not be condoned by the Appellate Authority. Learned Government Pleader also does not dispute that in view of the material before the Appellate Authority, the shown was considered as sufficient by Appellate Authority. The cause as shown is found sufficient to condone the delay in filing appeal before the Appellate Authority. The impugned order in view of Section 107 of APGST Act does not suffer from any illegality, as the appellate authority cannot condone the delay beyond statutory condonable period but considering that there was sufficient cause for not preferring appeal in time, the interest of justice condonation of the delay and adjudication of the matter merit by Appellate Authority. The appeal is a valuable statutory 8. 9. cause \ \ 10. 11. requires on 4 right. In exercise of the writ juri iction to do complete justice and provide opportunity of hearing on merits of the appeal, we condone the delay by imposing costs of Rs.20,000/-. The appellate authority shall consider and decide the appeal merits in accordance with law, expeditiously. The Costs shall be deposited in two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, before the appellate authority. The Writ Petition is partly allowed in the aforesciid terms. No order as to costs. on
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand dismissed. B. PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR r ri^i^ //// SECT FFICER To,
The Appellant Authority and Additional Commissioner (ST), Vijayawada, Krishna District. State of Andhra Pradesh.
The Deputy Commissioner (ST)-II, Office of the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Amalapuram Circle, Rajamahendravaram Division, East Godavari District, State of Andhra Pradesh.
The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Amalapuram Circle, East Godavari District, State of Andhra Pradesh.
The Joint Commissioner (ST), Kakinada, East Godavari District. State of Andhra Pradesh.
The Principal Secretary, Revenue (CT) Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati.
One CC to SRI. SHAIK JEELANI BASRA, Advocate [OPUC]
Two CCs to GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
Three C.D.Copies nm gi
HIGH COURT ; DATED:21/02/2024 1 h MAY im . Current Section ORDER !|X m WP.No.4517 of 2024 Ac> ^\zlsu ALLOWING THE WP IN-PART WITHOUT COSTS
Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.