^®
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. |

SAHA CONSTRUCTION vs. THE STATE TAX OFFICER & ORS.
(Calcutta High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY

Pet. Counsel

Sandip Choraria

Rajiv Pareek

Rishav Manna

Res. Counsel

Anirban Ray

T.m. Siddiqui

Tanoy Chakraborty

Petitioner / Applicant	SAHA CONSTRUCTION
Respondent	THE STATE TAX OFFICER & ORS.
Court	Calcutta High Court
State	West Bengal
Date	Jul 4, 2024
Order No.	WPA 12141 of 2024
Citation	2024(7) TAXREPLY 10180
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 RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J: 1. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the order dated 28th March 2024 passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”). 2. It is the petitioner’s case that challenging the order dated 9th October 2023 passed under Section 73 (9) of the said Act, an appeal had been filed before the appellate authority on 22nd February 2024 along with the pre-deposit as is required for maintaining the appeal. Simultaneously, the petitioner had also filed a separate application for condonation of delay explaining in detail, the grounds on which the petitioner had sought for condonation of delay. It appears that a delay of 13 days had occurred due to medical reasons. 3. At the time of hearing of the aforesaid appeal the petitioner had placed relevant documents to substantiate its claim of illness. Records reveal that the appellate au....