Case Law Details
M/s. Madhucon Granites Ltd. Vs CIT (Appeals) (Madras High Court)
Thereis no dispute to the fact that the Order-in-Original passed against the petitioner dated 27.04.2017 has indicated that an appeal shall lie before the Commissioner (Appeals), Chennai. Therefore, I find justifiable reasons to believe that the petitioner would have approached the Commissioner (Appeals), Chennai, in time, and thereafter, filed the appeal before the first respondent however, with the delay as stated supra. Since the first respondent has rejected the appeal only on the reason that the same was time barred, without expressing any view on the merits of the matter, I am of the view that the valuable statutory right of appeal provided to the petitioner cannot be denied on the simple reason that the said appeal was filed with meagre delay of 25 days. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the first respondent to consider the appeal and pass orders on the same in accordance with law. It is also made clear that this Court is not expressing any view on the merits of the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority as well as the claim made by the petitioner against such order in the appeal, since it is for the first respondent to consider the same and decide.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the first respondent dated 29.05.2018, wherein and whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the Order-in-Original No.13 of 2017 dated 27.04.2017 was rejected only on the reason that the said appeal was filed beyond the period as prescribed under the relevant statute.
2.Heard both sides.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
