Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Bheemaneni Projects Vs Deputy Assistant Commissioner ST III (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Appeal Number : Writ Petition No. 2706 of 2023
Date of Judgement/Order : 04/07/2023
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Bheemaneni Projects Vs Deputy Assistant Commissioner ST III (Andhra Pradesh High Court)

In the case of Bheemaneni Projects v. Deputy Assistant Commissioner ST III, heard by the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner sought relief against the rejection of their appeal challenging an adjudication order and subsequent rejection by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner, a firm headed by a 72-year-old woman, engaged in works contracts and other services, argued that they were unaware of the adjudication order due to their accountant’s prolonged absence caused by a Covid-related illness.

The petitioner contended that despite their genuine difficulty in filing a timely appeal, it was dismissed by the 2nd respondent as being beyond the condonable period of limitation. The dispute involved a substantial amount of Rs. 6,54,67,099/- in taxes. The High Court reviewed Section 107 of the GST Act, noting the prescribed three-month limit for filing appeals and the provision allowing for a one-month condonable delay under certain conditions.

The Court acknowledged the medical certificate submitted by the petitioner regarding the accountant’s illness, which prevented timely action. No contrary evidence was presented challenging the authenticity of this certificate. Emphasizing the statutory nature of the right to appeal and the limitations therein, the Court cited precedent highlighting the obligation on petitioners to substantiate claims of inability to file within prescribed periods.

Ultimately, the High Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226, allowing the writ petition. It set aside the rejection of the appeal by the 2nd respondent and condoned the delay of 112 days in filing, subject to the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax amount and paying costs within six weeks. This decision enabled the petitioner to proceed with their appeal and instructed the 2nd respondent to expedite the adjudication process in accordance with applicable laws.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031