^®
TaxReply India Private Limited

GST Library

Best GST Library

Subscription Plans

TaxGPT

GST News | Updates

GST Calendar

GST Case Laws

GST Case Laws Sitemap

GST Notifications, Circulars, Releases etc.

Act & Rules

Act & Rules (Multi-view)

GST Rates

HSN Codes ^New

GST Forms

GST Diary

GST Notebook

GST Fees Manager

GST Council Meetings

GST Set-off Calculator

ITC Reversal Calculator

E-invoice Calculator

Inverted Duty Calculator

GSTR-3B Manual

GSTR-9 Manual

GSTR-9C Manual

Full Site Search

E-way Bill

Finance Bill

GST e-books

TaxReply Support

YouTube Videos

Twitter

Buy Premium Tax Domains

About Us

Our Services

🔒

TaxReply India Pvt Ltd

🔒

^®

Subscribe Free GST updates on...

Subscribe to Best GST Library of India and get ahead of the rest. Click here for plans. | GST Act & Rules e-book Click here. |

ACME PAINTS AND RESIN PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, STATE TAX & OTHERS
(Calcutta High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY

Pet. Counsel

Debanuj Basu Thakur

Res. Counsel

Anirban Ray

T. M. Siddiqui

Petitioner / Applicant	ACME PAINTS AND RESIN PRIVATE LIMITED
Respondent	THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, STATE TAX & OTHERS
Court	Calcutta High Court
State	West Bengal
Date	Jul 4, 2024
Order No.	WPA 12250 of 2024
Citation	2024(7) TAXREPLY 10181
Add to Favorites	Add to favorites.
Download Original Order
Print (Full Page)
Print (Judgement Only)

TaxGPT ^Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

Listen this case in simple words

Audio Timeline

Audio Speed:

AA |

ORDER
1. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the order dated 15th March, 2024, passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) 2. It is the petitioner’s case that being aggrieved by the order dated 14th August, 2023, passed under Section 73 (9) of the said Act, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the appellate authority. Simultaneously, with the filing of the appeal, the petitioner had also made pre-deposit of Rs. 1,76,141/-in terms of provisions of Section 107 (6) of the said Act, as is required for maintaining the appeal. The said appeal was, however, filed beyond the time prescribed for filing of an appeal as provided for under Section 107 (4) of the said Act. It appears that the petitioner could not appropriately explain the delay in filing the appeal. It is on such ground, the appeal had been rejected. 3. Mr. Basu Thakur, learned advocate represent....