S/S Patel Hardware Versus Commissioner, State G.S.T. And 2 Others
GST
2018 (12) TMI 1005 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2019 (21) G. S. T. L. 145 (All.)
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 10-12-2018
Writ Tax No. – 1388 of 2018
GST
Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
For the Petitioner : Ved Prakash Singh
For the Respondent : C.S.C.
ORDER
SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH,J.
1. First supplementary affidavit filed today. The same is taken on record.
2. The present writ petition raises a short but interesting question of law being whether the petitioner would have a surviving right of appeal beyond a period of 30 days from the date of the penalty order or 30 days from the date of service of that order on the driver of the truck who was found to be
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ority. In fact, it has been disputed that that order was first communicated to the petitioner on 25.05.2018. Having thus first gained knowledge of that order the petitioner further claims to have filed the appeal under Section 107(1) of the Act within the period of three months there from.
5. The aforesaid appeal came to be dismissed as time barred by the order dated 06.07.2018 by treating the period of limitation to have been commenced from 12.02.2018 that is the date of the order.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the first place the statutory forum of second appeal against the impugned order dated 06.07.2018 does not exist inasmuch as the Tribunal has yet not been constituted under the Act. That position is admitted
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
o be aggrieved. Unless such construction is offered, the right of appeal would itself be lost though a delay of more than a month would in all such cases be such as may itself not warrant such strict construction.
9. In the facts of the present case as well it is seen that it is largely undisputed that the impugned penalty order was served on the driver of the truck while the penalty order is directed against the owner of the goods. Therefore, for that reason also it may be accepted that the penalty order had not been communicated to the petitioner prior to the date 25.05.2018.
10. The order dated 06.07.2018 is set aside. The Appellate Authority may condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible.
11. Acco
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =