^®
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. |

DELTA GOODS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANOTHER vs. THE UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
(Calcutta High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

T.S. SIVAGNANAM
BIVAS PATTANAYAK

Pet. Counsel

Himangshu Kumar Ray

Piyas Chowdhury

Subhasis Podder

Res. Counsel

T. M. Siddiqui

T. Chakraborty

S. Sanyal

Petitioner / Applicant	DELTA GOODS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANOTHER
Respondent	THE UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
Court	Calcutta High Court
State	West Bengal
Date	Sep 24, 2024
Order No.	F. M. A. 1169 of 2024 With IA No. CAN 1 of 2024
Citation	2024(9) TAXREPLY 12079
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
JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, C.J.) 1. This intra-Court appeal by the unsuccessful writ petitioners is directed against the order dated 21st August, 2024 in W.P.A. No.15504 of 2024. The appellants had filed the writ petition challenging the order passed by the appellate authority dated 13th March, 2024 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants as it was time-barred. 2. The appellants cannot fault the appellate authority’s order since the appeal was filed much beyond the condonable period. Therefore, the appellate authority was right in rejecting the appeal on the ground of it being barred by limitation as he had no power to condone the delay beyond the period of four months (3+1). Thus, the learned Single Bench was justified in not entertaining the writ petition. 3. However, after elaborately hearing the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the facts of the case, it is seen that the appellants did not respond to....