Skip to content

Part-58-One Pager Snapshot to the Latest Cases

-Ex-Parte Order set aside as notice not served
-Condonation of delay in filing Appeal beyond stipulated period
-Opportunity to Re-appear granted subject to deposit of cost of non-appearance of Rs 100000/- for each of the 3 years



Case Subject





Order set
aside as
notice not

Mahalaxmi v. Joint
Commissioner of
Goods & Service
Tax [2023] 153 250

The High Court observed that after receipt of the notice in the appeal proceedings, the appellant and his authorized representative had appeared
before the appellate authority and had sought adjournment, the appellate authority did not give the next date of hearing, but further notice was
issued to the appellant and the authorized representative. It is the case of the petitioner that such further notice issued to the petitioner were not
served upon them.
The High Court thus set side, the impugned order on the short ground that the same is passed in violation of principles of natural justice



of delay in
filing of
Appeal for
Revocation of

Jaipur Textiles v.
Appellate Authority/
Commissioner of
GST [2023] 153 248

GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled on 2-1-2023. However, appeal filed by the petitioner before Appellate Authority was beyond the
condonable period of 30 days. Appellate Commissioner thus rejected the appeal.
The High Court observed that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the assessee outside the purview of the GST regime without
reviving their GST registration, as the assessee will continue to carry on business. By not revoking the cancellation of the GST
registration, the Government will lose the revenue. Therefore, considering the above, Court condoned the delay in filing of appeal.
Case Referred- Suguna Cutpiece Centre v. The Appellate Joint Commissioner of GST (ST) (GST)



of delay in
filing Appeal

Nalla Mohammed
Hameedabanu v.
Appellate Deputy
Commissioner (ST)
[2023] 153 247

The petitioner was required to file an appeal by 26-5-2023. The last date for filing an application to condone the delay would have expired on 26-
6-2023. However, the petitioner filed an appeal belatedly on 3-7-2023 in the portal.
The High Court observed that the petitioner appeared to be a small-time trader. The Officers acting under the provisions of the GST Acts cannot
entertain appeal beyond the period of limitation and therefore, they rightly rejected the appeal. However, since petitioner was a small-time
trader, who wished to challenge the assessment order, High Court allowed thus allowed petition by directing to admit the appeal subject
to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. 50,000/- over and above, the amount already deposited by the petitioner towards pre-deposit



to appear
subject to
cost of nonappearance
Rs 100000/-
for each of
the 3 years

Vadivel Pyro Works
v. State Tax Officer
(ST) (FAC) [2023]
246 (Madras)

The petitioner already had been granted three opportunities, as per Section 73, therefore, respondent did not consider the adjournment letter and
proceeded to pass the assessment order. The petitioner also had filed a rectification petition under section 161 along with all the records. The
petitioner relied on the proviso to section 161 and submitted that before passing any orders opportunity should be granted to the assessee.
The High Court observed that even though the officer was not empowered to grant further adjournment, he ought to have recorded the adjournment
letter submitted by the petitioner, reject the same and thereafter ought to have passed an order. Even though the respondents had no power to
grant adjournment, the court had the power to direct the respondents to grant one more opportunity by taking into the fact of voluminous transaction.
Therefore, the court was of the considered opinion that the petitioner was entitled to one more opportunity. The High Court also observed that
filing application under Section 161 with all records, also indicated that the petitioner was bonafide in seeking time to furnish all the records and
thus the Court was of the considered opinion that the petitioner was entitled to one more opportunity. The High Court observed that while passing
the rectification order, the respondent has not followed the proviso stated under section 161. Therefore, Court was of the considered opinion that
before passing the order, respondent should have granted personal hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, while passing rectification order there is
violation of principles of natural justice. Thus, the impugned orders were set aside but since the tax liability is huge, the State cannot be
made to suffer by the attitude of the petitioner as well, therefore, in the interest of justice, the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh only) for each year. On such deposit, the respondent was required to re-do the assessment.
Case Referred- Pinstar Automotive India Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner, in W.P.No.8493 of 2023, dated 20-3-2023, reported
in 2023(3) TMI 1168,