Skip to content

Part-4-One Pager Snapshot of Round up of Latest GST Cases..

-Relied Upon Documents and what if Petitioner does not asks for the same

-Can delay in filing Appeal beyond Limitation Period be condoned

-Appeal rejected as filed beyond Limitation Period be decided on Merit in Writ

S.No.

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held 

Cases Referred

1

Section 73,
Section 74,
Section 75
and Section
107

-Relied upon
documents to be
provided, might
not be asked by
the Taxpayer
-Report of
Inspection not
sufficient in
absence to
corroborative
evidence
-Section 75(4)
mandatorily to be
followed

Lari Almira
House v. State of
U.P [2023] 149
taxmann.com 476
(Allahabad)

-No error in appellate order, whereby appeal was dismissed on ground of
limitation. However, Court considered validity of the order of proper officer
on the limited grounds which are available for judicial review under Article
226 of the Constitution of India as the order of proper officer has not merged
in the order of Appellate Authority.
-Sections 61 and 67, are step towards the initiation of the proceedings either
under Section 73 or Section 74 of the Act, and they do not form any basis for
concluding the evasion of tax and thus irrespective of the outcome under
section 61 or section 67, burden of assessing short payment of tax or wrong
availment of ITC lies on the department which is to be discharged by them.
-Mere report of inspection and discrepancy in the scrutiny of returns is not
enough to assess and levy the tax, the said discrepancies, even if noticed by
the department should be corroborated with materials in the form of either
the evidence or in any other form as the department may deem fit.
-Opportunity of hearing as per Section 75(4) mandatorily to be given by
department.
- Any document proposed to be relied upon should be provided to the
assessee prior to conclusion of the proceedings although department
contended that petitioner never demanded copy of relied upon documents
and in any case, all important points mentioned in the report were mention
in the show cause notice itself

-M.P. Steel
Corporation vs.
Commissioner of
Central Excise
2015(7) SCC 58

2

Section 29
and Section
107

Revocation of
Cancellation of
Registration &
Appeal filed
beyond limitation

Redolence Tea
Industries
v. UOI [2023] 149
taxmann.com 475
(Gauhati)

-Appeal pending before the Appellate Authority seeking revocation of the
cancellation filed beyond limitation period to be heard on merits by passing
appropriate orders rather than dismissing the same on ground of limitation
and requiring petitioner to approach this Court once again by filing a writ.

-CIT-12 –VsPheroza Framroze
and Company –
(2017) 11 SCC 730

3

Section 29
and Section
107

Revocation of
Cancellation of
Registration and
Appeal filed
beyond limitation

Jony Electricity
India Engineering
(P.) Ltd. v. JC
GST & Central
Excise, Appeals-I
[2023] 149
taxmann.com 474
(Madras)

Dismissal of the appeal by appellate Authority was held to be in order for
appeal filed beyond limitation period as petitioner had set out no
explanation, let alone justifiable explanation, for the condonation of even
the one month extension statutorily provided and thus the further delay of 6
months over and above the statutory limitation is fatal to its case.

-

S.No.

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held 

Cases Referred

1

Section 73,
Section 74,
Section 75
and Section
107

-Relied upon
documents to be
provided, might
not be asked by
the Taxpayer
-Report of
Inspection not
sufficient in
absence to
corroborative
evidence
-Section 75(4)
mandatorily to be
followed

Lari Almira
House v. State of
U.P [2023] 149
taxmann.com 476
(Allahabad)

-No error in appellate order, whereby appeal was dismissed on ground of
limitation. However, Court considered validity of the order of proper officer
on the limited grounds which are available for judicial review under Article
226 of the Constitution of India as the order of proper officer has not merged
in the order of Appellate Authority.
-Sections 61 and 67, are step towards the initiation of the proceedings either
under Section 73 or Section 74 of the Act, and they do not form any basis for
concluding the evasion of tax and thus irrespective of the outcome under
section 61 or section 67, burden of assessing short payment of tax or wrong
availment of ITC lies on the department which is to be discharged by them.
-Mere report of inspection and discrepancy in the scrutiny of returns is not
enough to assess and levy the tax, the said discrepancies, even if noticed by
the department should be corroborated with materials in the form of either
the evidence or in any other form as the department may deem fit.
-Opportunity of hearing as per Section 75(4) mandatorily to be given by
department.
- Any document proposed to be relied upon should be provided to the
assessee prior to conclusion of the proceedings although department
contended that petitioner never demanded copy of relied upon documents
and in any case, all important points mentioned in the report were mention
in the show cause notice itself

-M.P. Steel
Corporation vs.
Commissioner of
Central Excise
2015(7) SCC 58

2

Section 29
and Section
107

Revocation of
Cancellation of
Registration &
Appeal filed
beyond limitation

Redolence Tea
Industries
v. UOI [2023] 149
taxmann.com 475
(Gauhati)

-Appeal pending before the Appellate Authority seeking revocation of the
cancellation filed beyond limitation period to be heard on merits by passing
appropriate orders rather than dismissing the same on ground of limitation
and requiring petitioner to approach this Court once again by filing a writ.

-CIT-12 –VsPheroza Framroze
and Company –
(2017) 11 SCC 730

3

Section 29
and Section
107

Revocation of
Cancellation of
Registration and
Appeal filed
beyond limitation

Jony Electricity
India Engineering
(P.) Ltd. v. JC
GST & Central
Excise, Appeals-I
[2023] 149
taxmann.com 474
(Madras)

Dismissal of the appeal by appellate Authority was held to be in order for
appeal filed beyond limitation period as petitioner had set out no
explanation, let alone justifiable explanation, for the condonation of even
the one month extension statutorily provided and thus the further delay of 6
months over and above the statutory limitation is fatal to its case.

-