Record of proceedings v. M/S SICPA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. Thus, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India desires to withdraw the present writ petition to enable the department to HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM Record of proceedings Court No.3. approach the Appellate Tribunal as and when constituted as mandated. The Writ Petition (C) No.…
Judgment
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, J. For Petitioner : Ms. Sangita Pradhan, Deputy Solicitor General of India assisted by Ms. Natasha Pradhan and Ms. Purnima Subba, Advocates. For Respondent : Mr. T.R. Barfungpa, Advocate. Mr. Hem Lall Manger, Advocate. Ms. Parvin Manger, Advocate. Ms. Lahamu Bhutia, Advocate. .......
The learned Deputy Solicitor General of India has placed before this court the provision of Section 112 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST) as well as CGST (Ninth Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019 issued under C.B.I & C. Order No.9/2019- CT., dated 3-12-2019 which provides that the period of six months as provided under section 112(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 shall be considered to be the later of the following dates:- (i) date of communication of order; or (ii) the date on which the President or the State President, as the case may be, of the Appellate Tribunal after its constitution under section 109, enters office. i. ii.
Thus, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India desires to withdraw the present writ petition to enable the department to HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM Record of proceedings Court No.3. approach the Appellate Tribunal as and when constituted as mandated. The Writ Petition (C) No. 48 of 2022 is disposed of accordingly. Judge to/ Index: yes/No Internet: yes/No
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — s. 112.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Sikkim High Court, on 18 Aug 2023. The bench was BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.