Smt. Neelu vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance, Lko. And 3 Others

Facts

The petitioner, Smt. Neelu, challenged an order dated 10.10.2024 passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the UPGST/CGST Act. The appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority for being filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The petitioner contended that the Central Government had issued a notification on 2nd November 2023, extending the time for preferring an appeal. The petitioner argued that their appeal was filed within the extended time as per this notification, but the appellate authority failed to consider its effect while passing the impugned order.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order passed by the appellate authority on 10.10.2024 could not be sustained as the effect of the notification dated 2nd November 2023 had not been considered. The Court found that, prima facie, the notification's impact was overlooked. Consequently, the appellate authority's order was quashed. The matter was remanded to the appellate authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law, specifically after considering the effect of the notification dated 2nd November 2023. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal as time-barred, failing to consider the effect of the Central Government's notification dated 2nd November 2023 extending the period for preferring appeals under Section 107 of the UPGST/CGST Act? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Central Government's notification dated 2nd November 2023 provided an extension for filing appeals, and their appeal was filed within this extended period. The appellate authority incorrectly dismissed the appeal without considering the impact of this notification. Respondent's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the respondent (State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance, Lko. And 3 Others).