Case Law Details
Eastern Impex Corporation Vs Deputy Commissioner (Calcutta High Court)
Calcutta High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Eastern Impex Corporation, challenging the appellate authority’s rejection of their GST appeal. The appeal was initially dismissed due to a delay in filing, despite the petitioner having made the necessary pre-deposit required under Section 107(6) of the Central/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The underlying dispute arose from an order issued under Section 73(9) of the Act, concerning the tax period from July 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner, a small businessman, had filed an application for condonation of the two-day delay, citing a lack of proper knowledge regarding the GST portal. However, the appellate authority rejected this application, asserting that delays could only be condoned if filed within one month of the prescribed time limit. The High Court found this reasoning to be flawed, noting that the petitioner had demonstrated bona fide intent by making the pre-deposit and that the stated reason for the delay warranted consideration. The court referenced a precedent, S.K. Chakraborty & Sons v. Union of India & Ors., which contradicted the appellate authority’s interpretation of the limitation period.
The High Court determined that the appellate authority had failed to exercise its proper jurisdiction by not adequately considering the delay condonation application. The court emphasized that the petitioner, being a small business, should not be penalized for a minor procedural lapse, especially when there was no indication of malintent. The court pointed out that there was no benefit the petitioner could gain by filing a late appeal. The explanation provided by the petitioner regarding the GST portal’s usage was deemed plausible. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate authority’s order, condoned the delay, and directed the authority to hear and dispose of the appeal on its merits. This decision mandates that the appellate authority provide the petitioner with an opportunity for a hearing and conclude the matter within eight weeks. The court’s order was issued to ensure fairness and adherence to procedural justice, reinforcing the principle that minor delays should not automatically preclude a party from having their case heard, particularly when they have complied with the substantive requirements for filing an appeal.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the order dated 17th May, 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 5th 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.10,900/- 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 7th February, 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.
Mr. Siddiqui, learned advocate enters appearance on behalf of the State-respondents.
Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record.
Admittedly, in this case the petitioner had filed an appeal challenging the order passed under Section 73(9) of the said Act. Simultaneously, with the filing of the appeal, the petitioner had also made pre-deposit of Rs. 10,900/- as is required for maintaining the appeal. As such there is no lack of bona fide on the part of the petitioner in preferring the appeal It appears that the petitioner had also made a prayer for condonation of delay, inter alia, claiming that by reasons of lack of proper knowledge of the GST portal there had been delay in filing the appeal There appears to be a delay of 02 days in filing the appeal.
Taking into consideration that the petitioner is a small businessman and there is no lack of bona fide on the part of the petitioner and one does not stand to gain by filing a belated appeal, I am of the view that in the instant case, the appellate authority ought to have appropriately considered the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner.
The appellate authority, however, appears to have rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation by, inter alia, holding that the delay can only be condoned provided the same is filed within the period of one month of the time prescribed. The aforesaid observation made by the appellate authority runs counter to the observation made by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.K Chakaraborty & Sons v. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2023 SCC Online Cal 4759.
The aforesaid would demonstrate that the appellate authority had failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. Having regard to the above and taking note of the explanation given by the petitioner while setting aside the order dated 30th April 2024, I condone the delay in preferring the appeal.
Accordingly, I direct the appellate authority to hear and dispose of the appeal, on merit, upon giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of communication of this order.
With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
All parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded form the official website of this court .
Author Bio
