Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Laws/2010-11/1110

Whether the time limit for filing of appeal can be extended by the period of vacations or holidays?

Prepared By:
CA. Rajani Thanvi &
Arpita Birla

 
 

CASE:-  M/S UTTAM SUCROTECH INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD. V/s UNION OF INDIS & ANR
 
Citation: 2011-TIOL-21-HC-DEL-CX
 
Issue:Whether the time limit for filing of appeal can be extended by the period of vacations or holidays?
 
 
Brief Facts:-

The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, is a merchant exporter and engaged in the export of various engineering goods under rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. It had executed bond with the respondents for exporting the goods by purchasing manufactured excisable goods duty free on the basis of CT-1 issued from time to time by respondents. It had submitted necessary documents on 28.7.2004 and 19.10.2004 which had been scrutinized by the respondents and thereafter show cause notice no 6 dated 25.7.2005 and show cause notice no 9 dated 30.09.2005 had been served on the petitioner company. The petitioner explained all queries which were made in the aforesaid show cause notices in its replies dated 24.08.2005 & 04.1.2005 and made a prayer to the respondents to drop the proceedings and to withdraw the show cause notice.


Appellant’s Contention:-
Invoking the extraordinary and inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order no. 137/10-CX dated 8.1.201 passed by the Joint Secretary of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, whereby he has concurred with the order dated 8.6.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner received the order passed by the adjudicating officer on 29th August, 2006 and the right to prefer an Appeal under Section 35 of the Act was in subsistence for a period of 60 days and the said period expires only on 28th October, 2006 which was a Saturday and, therefore, he was entitled to have the benefit of 28th and 29th October, 2006 being Saturday and Sunday and, therefore, the Commissioner of Appeal has erred in erred in computing the period of limitation.


Respondent’s Contention:-
Learned counsel for respondent submitted that the method of computation adopted by the Commissioner of Appeals cannot be faulted with as the memorandum of appeal was presented on 28th November, 2006 which was a Tuesday. It is submitted by them that had it been filed on 27th November, 2006 the benefit of Saturday & Sunday prior to the Monday, would have ensure to the benefit of the petitioner for the purpose of the computation of period of limitation does not conceive of and further such a method of computation is totally impermissible.

 
Reasoning of Judgment:-
Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 enable a person to do what he could not have done on a holiday on the next working day. If the last day for filing an appeal expires on a holiday when a court is closed and the memorandum of appeal cannot be presented, it is obligatory on the part of the appellant to present the same day when the court reopens. The Commissioner as well as the revisional authority has correctly computed the period of limitation and appositely opined that the memorandum of appeal was presented on the 91st day and hence, the Commissioner could not have condoned the delay even if sufficient on that score stands on terra firma.

Decision:-
Petition Dismissed with costs.
---------------------------------

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com