E3 Edgeband Industries Pvt ltd Vs State of Up And 2 Others (Allahabad High Court)
The writ petition challenged a penalty order dated 16.05.2024 and an appellate order dated 16.10.2024, whereby the appeal was rejected on the ground of delay.
The petitioner, a registered dealer dealing in goods such as aluminum cable, panels, and PVC strips, had supplied goods to a purchaser who later returned certain items along with a tax invoice and e-way bill. During transportation, the vehicle carrying the goods was intercepted on 14.05.2024. The driver produced the tax invoice and e-way bill, and subsequent proceedings including preparation of interception memo and physical verification report were carried out. A seizure order was passed on 16.05.2024, followed by a notice under Section 129 of the Act and imposition of a penalty of ₹2,42,888 under Section 129(1)(a). The petitioner deposited the penalty under protest.
The petitioner filed an appeal against the penalty order on 27.09.2024 along with an application for condonation of delay. The appeal was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period of 90 days plus a condonable period of 30 days, which expired on 15.09.2024. The delay was explained on the ground that the firm’s accountant had provided all documents to the Chartered Accountant, but the CA failed to file the appeal due to a misunderstanding regarding the date of service of the order. It was also stated that the petitioner was unwell during the relevant period and took steps immediately upon recovery.
