Appeal Challenging GST S. 62 Proceedings Rejected on Ground of Laches: Allahabad HC stays Coercive Action [Read Order]
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the rejection of the appeal was not proper, particularly in view of the substantive materials already available on record which were never taken into account
![Appeal Challenging GST S. 62 Proceedings Rejected on Ground of Laches: Allahabad HC stays Coercive Action [Read Order] Appeal Challenging GST S. 62 Proceedings Rejected on Ground of Laches: Allahabad HC stays Coercive Action [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/06/23/2053296-appeal-challenging-gst-appeal-challenging-gst-proceedings-rejected-on-ground-of-laches-taxscan.webp)
The Allahabad High Court, in the matter of a challenging assessment under Section 62 of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act, stayed all coercive action until the next listing date.
The petitioner, M/S Markolines Pavement Technologies Limited submitted that their statutory appeal was denied without considering the merits or supporting documentation, citing laches, or the delay in filing.
The case was heard by Justice Piyush Agrawal, who observed that the issues raised warranted judicial consideration.
The petitioner had challenged the assessment order passed under Section 62 of the CGST Act, which pertains to best judgment assessment in cases where registered persons fail to file returns even after notice.
Also Read:Delay in Filing Form 10B Does Not Bar Exemption under Sections 11 & 12 of ITA: ITAT [Read Order]
Understanding Common Mode of Tax Evasion with Practical Scenarios, Click Here
Against the said assessment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appropriate appellate authority. However, the appeal was rejected solely on procedural grounds, namely delay without consideration of the documents and legal grounds presented in support of the case.
Appearing before the High Court, counsel for the petitioner argued that the rejection of the appeal was not proper, particularly in view of the substantive materials already available on record which were never taken into account.
The High Court held that the matter requires consideration. It directed that notice on behalf of all respondents has been accepted by the Chief Standing Counsel, and granted the State six weeks’ time to file a counter affidavit, with the petitioner allowed to file a rejoinder affidavit within one week thereafter. The matter is to be listed immediately thereafter for further hearing.
The Court directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in the interim, provided the petitioner deposits 10% of the remaining disputed tax amount within 15 days of the date of the order.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates