The instant petition is disposed of by providing that the petitioner can invoke the remedy of filing appeal before the Tribunal
Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017— Appeal— Delay Condonation--- The petitioner assailed the order dated 21.11.2019 whereby the appeal filed by him challenging the order passed under Section 129 (3) has been dismissed. The petitioner challenged the order before first Appellate Authority on 16.07.2019, after a period of eight months on the ground that as copy of order and demand was not reflected on the web portal and driver of the vehicle has not informed about the order and demand made from the said order, the same could not be challenged within statutory period. On 21.11.2019 the first Appellate Authority rejected the appeal of the petitioner on ground of delay. The petitioner submitted that the first Appellate Authority should have condoned the delay in filing of appeal and heard the appeal on merits. The respondent submitted that the date of order is mentioned as 14.08.2018 in the memo submitted by the petitioner, thus, it is wrong to say that the order was not served upon the petitioner. The court observed that the petitioner can wait and avail the remedy of filing appeal as and when the Tribunal is constituted. Since the seized goods have already been released, therefore, no prejudice is going to be caused to the petitioner at the present moment.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court held that the petitioner can invoke the remedy of filing appeal before the Tribunal in terms of the provisions of the CGST (Ninth Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019.”
The instant petition is disposed of by providing that the petitioner can invoke the remedy of filing appeal before the Tribunal
Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017— Appeal— Delay Condonation--- The petitioner assailed the order dated 21.11.2019 whereby the appeal filed by him challenging the order passed under Section 129 (3) has been dismissed. The petitioner challenged the order before first Appellate Authority on 16.07.2019, after a period of eight months on the ground that as copy of order and demand was not reflected on the web portal and driver of the vehicle has not informed about the order and demand made from the said order, the same could not be challenged within statutory period. On 21.11.2019 the first Appellate Authority rejected the appeal of the petitioner on ground of delay. The petitioner submitted that the first Appellate Authority should have condoned the delay in filing of appeal and heard the appeal on merits. The respondent submitted that the date of order is mentioned as 14.08.2018 in the memo submitted by the petitioner, thus, it is wrong to say that the order was not served upon the petitioner. The court observed that the petitioner can wait and avail the remedy of filing appeal as and when the Tribunal is constituted. Since the seized goods have already been released, therefore, no prejudice is going to be caused to the petitioner at the present moment.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court held that the petitioner can invoke the remedy of filing appeal before the Tribunal in terms of the provisions of the CGST (Ninth Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019.”