+91-09001929869, 08949770324
Shopping Bag (
0
)
Visitors
3
6
0
3
2
5
7
Menu
Home
About Us
Contact Us
Products
Tax Library
SUBSCRIBE OUR MAGAZINE
GST UPDATE
(A fortnightly magazine in English)
INCOME TAX CASES DIGEST
(A fortnightly magazine in English)
INCOME TAX AND COMPANY LAW UPDATE
(A monthly magazine in Hindi)
GOODS AND SERVICE TAX UPDATE
(A monthly magazine in Hindi)
BUSINESS FUNDA
GST PROCEDURES WITH READY RECKONER
Latest GST Judgments
For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on GST
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our GST Library
The Appellate Authority may condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible.
Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.
Appeal
— The penalty order in consequence of seizure proceedings dated 12.02. 2018 was never served on the petitioner but that order was first communicated to him on 25.05. 2018. The petitioner claims to have filed the appeal under Section 107(1) of the Act within the period of three months there from. The appeal came to be dismissed as time barred by treating the period of limitation to have been commenced from 12.02.2018 that is the date of the order. The impugned penalty order was served on the driver of the truck while the penalty order is directed against the owner of the goods. Therefore, the penalty order had not been communicated to the petitioner prior to the date 25.05.2018. Writ petition came to be allowed directing the Appellate Authority to condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible. — S/S Patel Hardware Vs. Commissioner, State G.S.T. And 2 Others [2018] 7 TAXLOK.COM 019 (Allahabad)
The Appellate Authority may condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible.
Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.
Appeal
— The penalty order in consequence of seizure proceedings dated 12.02. 2018 was never served on the petitioner but that order was first communicated to him on 25.05. 2018. The petitioner claims to have filed the appeal under Section 107(1) of the Act within the period of three months there from. The appeal came to be dismissed as time barred by treating the period of limitation to have been commenced from 12.02.2018 that is the date of the order. The impugned penalty order was served on the driver of the truck while the penalty order is directed against the owner of the goods. Therefore, the penalty order had not been communicated to the petitioner prior to the date 25.05.2018. Writ petition came to be allowed directing the Appellate Authority to condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible. — S/S Patel Hardware Vs. Commissioner, State G.S.T. And 2 Others [2018] 7 TAXLOK.COM 019 (Allahabad)
SUBSCRIBE OUR LIBRARIES
TOUR OF OUR GST ONLINE LIBRARY
TOUR OF OUR IT ONLINE LIBRARY
GST LIBRARY
INCOME-TAX LIBRARY