Goods & Services Tax
GST Case Laws

Search GST Case Laws

Keyword

Authority

Court

Section

Appeal No.

Date of Order

Date of Order

Judge

Favouring

Login/Subscribe to get access. Plan starts from Rs. 3500/-  Subscribe Now

Court: GSTAT Chennai   Date of Order: 2018-09-24

Ld. Counsel Shri M.N.Bharathi submits that the appeal ought to have been filed on 30.11.2017; that the appeal papers were handed over to appellant’s authorized Chartered Accountant which were misplaced in the office of the C.A; the appellants have good case on merits to succeed. The delay is neither deliberate nor wanton. The appellant being a small business entity, if delay is not condoned, he would be put to irreparable financial hardship.


Court: GSTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2018-09-24

Ld. Counsel Shri M.N.Bharathi submits that the delay was due to illness of appellant; the appellant has good case on merits to succeed. The delay is neither deliberate nor wanton. The appellant being a small business entity, if delay is not condoned, he would be put to irreparable financial hardship.


Court: GSTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2018-09-24

Ld. Counsel submits that appellant’s headquarters is in Mumbai and the relevant personnel in charge of taxation is also based in Mumbai. While the notices and correspondences thereto were served on the appellant in Chennai, the same were in turn forwarded to their personnel in charge of service tax matters in Mumbai office. However, on 14.02.2018, Shri Deepak Gogavkar, the Asst. Vice President (Tax) of appellant company who was handling activities of Chennai region, resigned and left the organization. However, inadvertently, at the time of relieving of Mr. Deepak Gogavkar the fact of the present appeal pending for filing before CESTAT was not noticed, which could be discovered only at their annual fiscal audit. Thus there was inadvertent and unintended delay of 60 days in filing of the subject appeal. Ld. counsel submits they have also filed Appeal ST/40923/2017-DB on the similar issue for the earlier period. Therefore, the appellant undoubtedly had intended and at all times to prefer an appeal against the impugned order. The appellant has paid Rs.15 crores which is in much excess of pre-deposit of 7.5% at the time of investigation, hence there has been no monetary benefit to the appellant due to this delay. As the amount involved is substantial, if the delay is not condoned it will result in a grave and immeasurable financial loss. She prays for condonation of delay. She relies on following case laws : 1) Athletics Federation of India Vs CC (ACC & Import) Mumbai 2010 (254) ELT 310 (Tri.-Mumbai) 2) Ram Nath Sao Vs Gobardhan Sao 2002 (3) SCC 195 3) Sri Vasavi Agencies Vs CCE Vishakapatnam 2008 (227) ELT 185 (A.P.)


Court: GSTAT Allahabad   Date of Order: 2018-09-19

Heard the early hearing application filed by the Revenue. The Learned A.R. stated that the demand is of Rs.1,53,55,283/- for the extended period. No other ground has been raised for early hearing. We, therefore, reject the application for early hearing.


Court: GSTAT Kolkata Date of Order: 2018-09-14

When the matter was called none appeared on behalf of the respondent assessee. No adjournment request has been received. Notice of hearing have also not been received as undelivered. Also none appeared on the earlier dates i.e. 18.04.2018 and 22.05.2018 when the cases were listed on board.


Court: GSTAT Delhi Date of Order: 2018-09-13

Documents as were required from the department, have been provided to the appellant. Matter be taken up on 5.10.2018 for final hearing.


Court: GSTAT Delhi Date of Order: 2018-09-13

Heard the ld. AR on COD application. The appellant assessee is absent on call. There is a delay of one day in filing the appeal by the appellant is sufficient for delay. The reasons stated seems reasonable, we condone the delay and admit the appeal.


Court: GSTAT Allahabad Date of Order: 2018-09-11

On matter being called neither anybody appeared nor is there any adjournment request in spite of the notice of hearing having been sent to the appellant well in advance. We also note that the appellant was un-represented on the last date of hearing also. Accordingly, we have heard learned A.R. appearing for the Revenue and have gone through the COD Application, which stand filed for condoning the delay of 174 days in filing the present appeal.


Court: GSTAT Delhi Date of Order: 2018-09-11

It is brought to the notice that the matter pertains to the service tax with respect to mandap keeper services. There is observed a typographical error in the appeal memo wherein excise is mentioned. Department is directed to rectify the said error and registry is to incorporate the same and accordingly transfer the matter to service tax bench and list in due course thereafter.


Court: GSTAT Delhi Date of Order: 2018-09-10

Arguments on application praying for condonation of delay in filing of appeal heard. Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is a delay of 10 days in filing the appeal which occurred due to the circumstances beyond the control of the assessee on account of various administrative constraints. Delay is accordingly prayed to be condoned. There is no apparent objection on the part of the Department.