Case Law Details
Manoj Steel Traders Vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others (Allahabad High Court)
Introduction: The Allahabad High Court, in the case of Manoj Steel Traders Vs State of U.P. And 2 Others, ruled on an issue involving GST law, limitations for filing appeals, and the role of counsel in communication. The case provides insights into the legal responsibilities of both the state and the petitioner in tax matters.
Background of the Case: Manoj Steel Traders, a registered dealer in iron and steel, filed a writ petition challenging an order that dismissed its appeal on the ground of limitation. The company’s legal representative did not inform the client about the order, leading to a delay in filing an appeal.
Interplay Between Section 107 and Section 169 of UP GST Act: Section 107 specifies the limitation period for filing an appeal as three months from the date of communication of the order. Section 169 outlines methods for communicating orders, including through the petitioner’s advocate. According to the court, an order communicated to an advocate constitutes service upon the petitioner, as per Section 169.
The Argument of ‘Non-Communication’ by Counsel: Manoj Steel Traders argued that they were unaware of the original order due to their advocate’s failure to communicate it. They contended that a ‘bona fide mistake’ on the part of the advocate should be considered a good ground for condoning the delay in filing an appeal.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
