Sukanta Pal Vs Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Calcutta High Court)
In the case of Sukanta Pal vs. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, the Calcutta High Court addressed a petition challenging an appellate authority’s decision to reject an appeal on the grounds of limitation under the Central/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner, a small businessman, had filed an appeal against a Section 73(9) order, along with the required pre-deposit. However, a 66-day delay occurred in filing the appeal, attributed to a lack of proper knowledge of the GST portal. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal, citing its inability to condone delays beyond one month of the prescribed time. The High Court found that the appellate authority had failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction, especially considering the petitioner’s bona fide intentions. It referred to a prior Division Bench decision that contradicted the authority’s stance. The Court set aside the appellate authority’s order, condoned the delay, and directed a rehearing of the appeal on its merits within eight weeks.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
1. the present writ petition has been filed, inter allia, challenging the order dated 30th April, 2024, passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Central/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), whereby the petitioner’s appeal had been rejected on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. The facts are not in dispute. In connection with a proceeding initiated under Section 73 of the said Act, for the tax period July, 2017 to March, 2018 an order under Section 73(9) of the said Act was passed on 31st October, 2023. Although, the petitioner had preferred an appeal from the aforesaid order and simultaneously, with the filing of the appeal, had also made pre-deposit of Rs.63,278/- as is required for maintaining the appeal under the provisions of Section 107(6) of the said Act, there had been delay in filing of the appeal. In such circumstance, the petitioner had also filed an application on 3rd April, 2024 explaining the delay in preferring the appeal. According to the petitioner, the appellate authority without appropriately taking note of the grounds for condonation of delay had rejected the appeal, inter alia, on the ground that appellate authority is competent only to condone the delay provided the appeal is filed within the period of one month beyond the time prescribed. He submits that the aforesaid order is perverse. In the facts of this case this Court may be pleased to restore the appeal by condoning the delay.
