Fashion Planet vs Superintendent

Kerala High Court

Fashion Planet vs Superintendent on 7 May, 2024

Author: P Gopinath

Bench: P Gopinath

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
                                  &
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
  TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 17TH VAISAKHA, 1946
                       WA NO. 642 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.03.2024 IN WP(C) NO.9580 OF
                  2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN WPC:

           FASHION PLANET,
           643 1, 2, CHANDRAVIRUTHIL BUILDING, RAMANCHIRA,
           THIRUVALLA, PATHANATHITTA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED
           BY ITS PARTNER, SRI. MATHEW THOMAS,
           PIN - 689 101.

           BY ADV TOMSON T.EMMANUEL


RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN WP(C):

    1      SUPERINTENDENT,
           CENTRAL GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, THIRUVALLA RANGE,
           M C ROAD, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
           PIN - 689 101.

    2      CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS,
           MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NEW
           DELHI -110 023, REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER
           SECRETARY, PIN - 110 023.

           BY ADV. SRI. SREELAL N WARRIER, SC


        THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.05.2024,    THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WA NO. 642 OF 2024
                                     2

              GOPINATH P. & SYAM KUMAR V.M., JJ.
                     ================
                          W. A. No.642 of 2024
                        =================
                  Dated this the 07th day of May, 2024


                              JUDGMENT

GOPINATH P, J.

The appellant had approached this Court challenging Ext.P4 order. The learned Single Judge of this Court declined jurisdiction on the ground that the appellant has an appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST / SGST Acts. The grievance of the appellant is that the appellant is unable to upload an appeal though the appellant is still within time to file an appeal against Ext.P4 order in terms of the provisions contained in Section 107 of the CGST / SGST Acts.

2. Sri. Sreelal N Warrier, the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that since the appellant is still within time to file an appeal against Ext.P4 order, the appeal can be disposed of permitting the appellant to prefer an appeal within the statutory period of limitation and further directing that if necessary, the portal shall be enabled to ensure that the appellant is able to file the statutory appeal.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, this writ appeal stands disposed of without interfering with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, but however clarifying that if the appellant were to prefer a statutory appeal against Ext.P4 order within the statutory period of limitation, the same shall be taken on file and disposed of without undue delay. If the petitioner faces any glitches in filing an appeal on account of any technical difficulty, he may approach the appellate authority with a request and in such an event, the appellant authority will ensure that the appellant is able to file a statutory appeal against Ext.P4. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P. JUDGE Sd/-

SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE DK