P G Metal vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, P.G. Metal, filed a writ miscellaneous petition seeking a two-week extension to prepare and file an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. This petition was filed in relation to an earlier writ petition, W.P(MD)No.22015 of 2025, dated 12.08.2025. The earlier writ petition had resulted in an order remanding the matter back to the original authority, conditional upon the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax amount. The petitioner submitted that they had misplaced the order copy and sought an extension for filing the appeal, not for the deposit. The respondents are the Assistant Commissioner(ST) and the State Tax Officer.

Held

The Court held that the writ miscellaneous petition lacked merit and was liable to be dismissed. The Court observed that the petitioner's prayer for an extension of time to file an appeal was beyond the scope of the earlier order passed in W.P(MD)No.22015 of 2025. The Court noted that the petitioner had not complied with the condition of depositing 25% of the disputed tax amount as stipulated in the earlier order. Furthermore, the Court found that the petitioner's stated reason for seeking an extension (misplacing the order copy) and the prayer itself were unclear and did not provide a decipherable basis for the relief sought. The Court clarified that if the petitioner intended to challenge or modify the original order, they should have pursued appropriate remedies such as filing a formal appeal or a review petition, rather than seeking an extension of time through a miscellaneous petition. The Court found no merit in the petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an extension of time for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, in the present writ miscellaneous petition, given the prior order in W.P(MD)No.22015 of 2025. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued for a two-week extension to prepare and file an appeal before the appellate authority. They claimed to have misplaced the earlier order and sought time for appeal preparation. Revenue's contention: The respondents did not explicitly file a counter-argument in this specific writ miscellaneous petition. However, the Court's reasoning implies that the prayer for extension of time to file an appeal cannot be made in this manner, and if the petitioner sought to alter the original order, they should have filed a review or a regular appeal.