M\/s Shailendra Eat Udyog Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others
GST
2019 (1) TMI 1418 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – TMI
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 18-1-2019
Writ Tax No. – 1712 of 2018
GST
Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
\nFor the Petitioner : Digvijay Tiwari
\nFor the Respondent : C.S.C.
\nORDER
\nSAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH,J.
\n1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
\n2. Admittedly, the period of limitation to file a first appeal under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 is three months and the period for which the delay may be condoned is thirty days from the expiry of normal period of limitation. Clearly, no application for condonation of delay may have been entertained by the appellate authori<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Full Bench decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax I; Commissioner of Income Tax Central; Janpad Thok Kendriya Upbhokta Sahkari Bhandar Limited Vs. Mohd Farooq; New Cawnpore Floor Mills Pvt Ltd; Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 2009 (317) ITR 305, the delay condonation application filed beyond the period of thirty days could not be condoned and it was clearly not maintainable by the appellate authority. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Shailendra Eat Udyog Versus State Of U.P. And 3 OthersGST2019 (1) TMI 1418 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – TMIALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 18-1-2019Writ Tax No. – 1712 of 2018 GSTSaumitra Dayal Singh,J. For the Petitioner : Digvijay Tiwari For the Respondent : C.S.C. ORDER SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is … Continue reading “M\/s Shailendra Eat Udyog Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16372","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16372","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=16372"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16372\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16372"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16372"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16372"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6. Consequently, there is no error in the order of the appellate authority dismissing the appeal as time barred.
\n7. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that if the remedy of appeal is held to be non-existant, still jurisdiction of the writ Court against the original order dated 03.12.2018 may not be ousted.<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n