Kamala Stores & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal & Ors. (Calcutta High Court)
The Calcutta High Court recently allowed a writ petition filed by Kamala Stores, setting aside an order of the appellate authority under the Central/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The appellate authority had rejected Kamala Stores’ appeal as time-barred. The petitioners, a small partnership firm, had filed an appeal against an order passed under Section 73(9) of the Act, along with the required pre-deposit. However, there was a delay of 79 days in filing the appeal. Consequently, they also submitted an application explaining the delay, citing a lack of familiarity with the GST portal.
The High Court observed that the petitioners had demonstrated bona fide intentions by filing the appeal and making the pre-deposit. The court noted that the petitioners, being a small firm, stood to gain nothing from a delayed appeal. The court emphasized that the appellate authority should have considered the condonation application more sympathetically.
The High Court found that the appellate authority’s reasoning for rejecting the appeal was flawed. The appellate authority had stated that it could only condone delays if the appeal was filed within one month beyond the prescribed time limit. This, the High Court pointed out, directly contradicted the precedent set by a Division Bench of the same court in the case of S.K. Chakraborty & Sons v. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2023 SCC Online Cal 4759. This judgment established different principles for condoning delays.
The High Court held that the appellate authority had failed to exercise its jurisdiction correctly by ignoring the S.K. Chakraborty precedent. The court concluded that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, considering the explanation offered by the petitioners. The High Court accordingly set aside the appellate order and directed the appellate authority to hear the appeal on its merits, after giving the petitioners an opportunity to be heard, within eight weeks of receiving the court’s order. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Assessee was represented by Advocate Himangshu Kumar Ray
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
