Skip to content

Part-44-One Pager Snapshot to the Latest Cases

-Condonation of Limitation period in case of rejection of appeal filed against cancellation of registration
-Calculation of Time limit for filing of Appeal as four months are not always 120 days
-Alternative Remedy
-Grant of Bail



Case Subject



Cases Referred



of Limitation
period in
case of
rejection of
appeal filed

Gautam Kar v.
Union of India
[2023] 151 281

The petitioner stated that Order of cancellation of GST registration was passed without any notice to the petitioner. An appeal
filed before the Appellate Authority was also dismissed on the ground of limitation.
The High Court observed that purpose of limitation being prescribed in a statute is two fold, namely, to ensure compliance of
the statutory provisions by the persons on whom the provisions of the statute are applicable and further to ensure that no third
party rights which may have been created in the meantime are permitted to be non suited/unsettled. It would be in the interest
of the revenue to permit the revocation of a cancellation of GST registration of an assessee like the petitioner so that it felicitates
collection of revenue as mandated under the GST Regime. It was further stated that a writ Court is empowered to condone the
delay of any statutory or quasi judicial authority. Accordingly, the Court stated that appeal before the Appellate Authority be reheard on merits by passing appropriate orders regarding the revocation of cancellation of GST

of Income Tax12 v. Pheroza
Framroze and
Company -
(2017) 11 SCC



of Time limit
for filing of
Appeal as
four months
are not
always 120

Shri Ram Ply
Product v.
Grade 2 Appeal
State Tax [2023]
282 (Allahabad)

The appeal instituted by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that it was beyond maximum period, as prescribed under
the statute i.e. four months. The appellate authority computed four months as each month would be of 30 days.
The High Court stated that provisions of Section 107 of the Act, 2017 reflects that it is not 120 days, but it is four months. The
four months may be of 121 days or 122 days, as the case may be. In the present case, in four months, around 121 days come,
and the appeal was filed on 121st day. The appellate authority should have entered into the merit of the application whether it
disclosed sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period of three months instead of entering into merit of the
application to find out whether the appellant, petitioner herein had sufficient cause which preventing him from presenting the
appeal within a period of three months, the appeal has been summarily dismissed only on the ground that it was beyond 120
days, and not within 120 days.





T.V.H.Express v.
State Tax Officer
[2023] 151 283

The high Court observed that, as against the impugned order, there was an appeal remedy available before the appropriate
authority. It was clear from the records that the petitioner had still not filed any appeal as against the impugned order. Therefore,
High Court, without going into the merits and factual aspects of the matter, directed the petitioner to file appeal against the
impugned order, dated 17.03.2022.



Section 69

Grant of Bail

Mohd. Rashid
Siddiqui v. State of
U.P. [2023] 151 284

The applicant for the bail was a young lawyer associated with the informant of the present case, who was also a practising
lawyer, sent the eight firms to the applicant for providing legal aid and G.S.T. Thereafter, on his advice, services of one Sanjay
Yadav was taken, who misused the user I.D. and password of the applicant and raised fabricated input tax credit. Learned
counsel for the applicant further submitted that detail investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer, but the only
evidence found was of payment of Rs.1,12,000/- in the account of wife of the applicant by co-accused Sanjay Yadav.
The High Court stated that considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for applicant, learned A.A.G, learned counsel
for the complainant and going through the material available on record, contents of F.I.R., other relevant documents, gravity of
offence as well as facts and circumstances of the case, it was evident that during the course of investigation Rs.1.12 lakh was
found in the account of wife of the applicant by the main accused, Sanjay Yadav. It was also evident that said Sanjay Yadav,
had already been enlarged on bail. In such circumstances, applicant was entitled to be released on bail.