9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 736X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yond limitation as prescribed under Section 107 of GST Act. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that an ex-parte order came to be passed by respondent no.3 in purported exercise of power under Section 74 of the GST Act vide order dated 12.06.2024. He draws my attention to argue that even no opportunity of hearing was granted and the documents which were sought in the form of SIB report, which were proposed to be relied upon, was never provided to the petitioner. 4. It is argued that against the said order, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing a writ petition being Writ Tax No.220 of 2024, however, the same was disposed off vide judgment dated 04.09.2024. In the said judgment, it was observed that in case t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner argues that the petitioner was bonafidely pursuing his remedies against the assessment order, firstly by filing a writ petition before this Court and secondly by availing the remedy of SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and thus, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act as has been held in the case of M.P. Steel Corporation vs. Commissioner of Central Excise; (2015) 7 SCC 58. He further argues that the order under Section 74 of the GST Act is wholly arbitrary for the reasons that in the show-cause notice, there was no assertion/allegation that there exist any material so as to justify invoking of larger period of limitation under Section 74. He argues that to invoke the jurisdiction under S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prima-facie, the petitioner was bonafidely pursuing his remedy before this Court as well as before the Supreme Court as is evident from the two orders passed, and immediately after passing of the order by the Supreme Court on 04.11.2024, the petitioner preferred the appeals on 06.11.2024. The period of the petitioner having spent before the High Court and the Supreme Court could be pleaded by him to be excused in view of the mandate of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. This aspect has not been considered in the impugned orders. 11. Thus, finding the impugned orders dated 11.11.2024 & 23.11.2024 to be improper insofar as it fails to consider the mandatory prescriptions contained in Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the orders impugned canno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
