Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2021 (11) TMI 582

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he order or decision. As per subsection (4), if the appellate authority is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of three months, it shall allow the appellant to present the same within a further period of one month. In the instant case, the order under Section 73 was passed on 28.03.2019 and communicated since petitioner has deposited the tax in terms of the said order. Period of three months and the extended period of further one month have expired long back. It is settled law that when the statute does not provide for further extension of limitation beyond the extended period, the limitation for filing appeal would end on the expiry of the extended period .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. B.Narasimha Sharma, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2; Mr. Krishna Swamy for the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent No.3; and Sri K.Raji Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5. 2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed legality and validity of Order-in- Original dated 28.03.2019 passed by respondent No.1 under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (briefly the Act hereinafter). 3. From a perusal of the Order-in-Original, we find that petitioner had failed to file Goods and Service Tax (GST) returns since October, 2017 to December, 2018. After the discussions and fin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aid within one month from the date of issue of this order. 4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.1 ought to have proceeded under Section 62 of the Act, since it is a case of non-filing of return. Referring to Section 62, he submits that as per sub-section (1) thereof, provision of Section 62 has overriding effect over Sections 73 and 74. Notwithstanding the same, respondent No.1 erroneously assumed jurisdiction and passed the Order-in- Original under Section 73 of the Act. He submits that in terms of the Order-in-original petitioner has deposited the tax. Despite the same, Superintendent of Central Tax, Nizamabad Branch issued notice to the petitioner on 09.08.2021 calling upon the petitioner to pay the penalt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ising out of SLP(C) No.13639 of 2021 @ D No.11555 of 2020) dated 03-09-2021 . 7. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that it is a case of jurisdictional error or wrongful assumption of jurisdiction by the assessing officer when it was not available and thereby a case for invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we are not impressed by the submission so made. 8. Respondent No.1 had the jurisdiction to assess the petitioner, whether it is under Section 62 or under Section 73 of the Act. Even if we accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.1 ought to have proceeded under Section 62 and not under Section 73, it is at best a case of invoking a wrong leg .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l period of 30 days. In that case the appeal was filed even beyond the extended period of limitation which was rejected by the appellate authority on the ground that it had no power to condone the delay beyond 30 days. However, the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India entertained the writ petition challenging the order of assessment and set aside the order of assessment, relegating the petitioner to the assessing authority for reconsideration of its assessment. It was in this factual backdrop the Supreme Court answered the question framed by holding that the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition, whereafter the judgment of the High Court was set aside and the writ petition was dismissed. 11. In s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates