AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. P.Venkat Prasad, learned counsel representing P V Prasad Associates, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr. M.S. Achyuth Bharathwaj, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing for respondent No.2.
The writ petition has been preferred against the order-in-original dated 12.12.2023 for the Financial Year 2017-18 by respondent No.1 imposing tax, interest and penalty on the petitioner.
The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that respondent No.1 passed an ex parte impugned order-in-original due to which the petitioner was unaware of the adjudication proceedings and came to know about the liability only when the respondent bank informed the petitioner that a lien/freeze had been marked on his account.
However, after some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned order-in-original. He submits that some delay might have been occurred in approaching the appellate authority and therefore, the appellate authority may be directed to consider the appeal sympathetically.
Learned counsel for the respondent Department submits that the petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned order-in-original taking all the grounds as are available to it in law and on facts before the appellate authority in respect of the subject tax period.
However, upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, since the petitioner seeks liberty to prefer an appeal, we do not wish to comment on the merits of the contentions raised by the parties.
Therefore, we grant liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal within a period of two weeks with statutory pre-deposit and a delay condonation application. The petitioner may take all such grounds of law and on facts in the memo of appeal as are available to it. Needless to say, the appellate authority would consider the question of delay taking into account the aforesaid facts and circumstances and if it is satisfied on the point of delay, proceed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. During the period of two weeks within which the petitioner has to file an appeal, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order-in-original.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.