Mukesh Poddar vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Revenue State Tax Bally And Salkia Charge And Ors
Held
The Court condoned the delay of 103 days in filing the appeal, finding that sufficient cause was shown in the supporting affidavit. Regarding the main appeal, the Court held that the learned Single Bench was correct in its assessment that there was no scope for passing an interim order. Consequently, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Single Bench. The appeal and the interim application (IA No. CAN 1 of 2024) were dismissed. The matter was then directed to be listed before the appropriate Single Bench for further proceedings.
Facts
The appellant, Mukesh Poddar, filed an intra-Court appeal challenging an order dated April 8, 2024, passed by a learned Single Bench in W.P.A. No.7934 of 2024. The original writ petition had challenged an order by GST authorities that cancelled the appellant's GST registration. The appeal was filed with a delay of 103 days, for which an affidavit was filed showing sufficient cause. The High Court considered the delay condonation application and the main appeal.
Key Issues
1. Whether sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the delay of 103 days in filing the intra-Court appeal, as required under the relevant procedural rules. 2. Whether the learned Single Bench was correct in holding that there was no scope for passing an interim order in the writ petition challenging the cancellation of GST registration. Contentions of the Appellant: The appellant argued that sufficient cause existed for the delay in filing the appeal. They also implicitly argued that the learned Single Bench erred in not granting any interim relief, suggesting that the cancellation of registration without proper consideration warranted intervention. Contentions of the Revenue/State: The revenue/state did not explicitly record arguments on the merits of the appeal. However, their presence and participation indicate opposition to the appellant's plea for interference with the Single Bench's order.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, C.J.) In Re. I.A. No. CAN 2 of 2024
We have heard the learned advocates for the parties.
There is delay of 103 days in filing the appeal. We have perused the affidavit filed in support of the petition and we find that sufficient cause has been shown for not being able to prefer the appeal within the period of limitation.
2
I.A. No.CAN 2 of 2024 is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. In Re.: M.A.T. 1639 of 2024
This intra-Court appeal by the writ petit
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 Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.