Allowed

M/S Marshall Construction, v. the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC11 May 2023I.A.(Civil)/1035/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an interlocutory application seeking leave to file an appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, the Gauhati High Court allowed the applicant to condone delay. The court found that the previous order inadvertently forgot to include this liberty given earlier.

What did the court decide?

The interlocutory application disposed of allowing the applicant to file the appeal by condoning the delay.

M/S Marshall Construction, Vs the Union of India and 6… — GST and Indirect Tax | Gauhati HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010085072023

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1035/2023

¶5

M/S MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION,

¶6

REP. BY SHRI JATIN GOGOI, SOLE PROPRIETOR, AGED 59 YEARS GOLAI NO. 1, P.O. DIGBOI, PIN- 786171, DIST.- TINSUKIA, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS

¶9

REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPTT. OF REVENUE, CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI- 110001

¶10

2:THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GST HQRS GUWAHATI GST BHAWAN KEDAR ROAD MACHKHOWA GUWAHATI- 781001 ASSAM

¶11

3:JOINT COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX MILAN NAGAR F LANE P.O. C.R. BUILDING DIBRUGARH- 786003 4:THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

¶12

Page No.# 2/3

¶13

TINSUKIA DIVISION DURGABARI ROAD P.O.- TINSUKIA- 786123

¶14

5:THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX TEZPUR DIVISION S.C. ROAD TEZPUR- 784001

¶15

6:THE SUPERINTENDENT (A/E) OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX TINSUKIA DIVISION DURGABARI ROAD P.O.- TINSUKIA- 786123

¶16

7:SUPERINTENDENT (TAR) CENTRAL GST TINSUKIA DIVISION P.O.- TINSUKIA- 78612

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. M BHATTACHARJEE

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, GST

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Date : 11-05-2023

¶22

Heard Ms. M Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. R Deka, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. SC Keyal, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 7.

¶23

The applicant’s counsel submits that the order dated 31.03.2023 passed in WP(C) No. 1843/2023 should be modified, inasmuch as, while the applicant had been given the liberty to approach the appropriate forum by way of filing an

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

appeal in terms of Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, this Court had inadvertently forgotten to allow the petitioner/applicant to file the appeal, by condoning the delay that had already occurred, while filing the said appeal. She accordingly prays that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned by this Court.

¶26

Ms. R Deka, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 submits that she has got no objection to the prayer made by the applicant’s counsel.

¶27

On perusing the order dated 31.03.2023 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 1843/2023, this Court finds that the writ petition had been closed, with liberty being given to file an appeal before the competent authority. However, this Court had not taken into consideration the fact that the appeal would have been hit by limitation in terms of the Finance Act, 1994 at the time of filing the appeal.

¶28

In view of the above fact and keeping in view the principles of equity, this Court is of the view that the applicant/petitioner should be allowed to avail the statutory remedy available in filing the appeal before the concerned authority, which should be disposed of by the said authority on the merits of the appeal. The delay in filing the appeal should accordingly be condoned.

¶29

The interlocutory application is accordingly disposed of.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

M/S Marshall Construction, v. the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Marshall Construction, v. the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Snowfall Agro Products Private Limited Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Tripti Rani Das and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Suleka Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Tolaram Bafna Artificial Limb and Caliper Centre Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Sumcon Infraventures LLP Vs the Union of India and 10 Ors.

M/S Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd. Vs the National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. and 3 Ors.