^®
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. |

ELSY JOY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX & OTHERS
(Kerala High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

GOPINATH P.

Pet. Counsel

Padmanathan K.v.

R. Sreejith.

Res. Counsel

Dayasindhu Shreehari N.s

Petitioner / Applicant	ELSY JOY
Respondent	THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX & OTHERS
Court	Kerala High Court
State	Kerala
Date	Oct 22, 2024
Order No.	WP(C) NO. 35393 OF 2024
Citation	2024(10) TAXREPLY 11524
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 1. Petitioner has approached this Court, challenging Ext.P4 order issued under the provisions of Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Acts, for the year 2017-18, on a short ground. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, though by Ext.P2 notice dated 20.06.2023, the petitioner had given time till 21.07.2023 to file a reply, Ext.P4 order was passed on 11.07.2023, even before the time for filing reply had expired. 3. Learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 6th respondent would, however, contend that the petitioner has already availed the remedy of filing an appeal against Ext.P4 order, claiming the benefit of Ext.P10 notification (issued in the matter of limitation for filing appeals), which clearly, on its terms, was not applicable to the petitioner. It is submitted that, the appeal filed by the petitioner was also rejected by Ext.P7 order finding that it was barred by limitation. It is submitted that, in such circumstances, the onl....