Mecel Construction Vs Assistant Commissioner (Calcutta High Court)
Calcutta High Court addressed a petition challenging the freezing of a taxpayer’s bank account due to non-response to a GST adjudication notice during the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioner argued that the Show Cause Notice, issued on October 21, 2021, could not be responded to due to pandemic-related difficulties. Subsequently, an adjudication order was passed on January 24, 2023, which the petitioner claimed was not communicated. The petitioner only became aware of it when their bank account was frozen. Upon learning of the order, they filed an appeal with an application for condonation of delay and made the required pre-deposit of ₹6,64,190/-. However, the tax authorities neither responded to the appeal nor lifted the attachment on the bank account.
The High Court ruled that procedural fairness must be maintained and that statutory limitations should be interpreted liberally, especially in cases of genuine hardship. It referenced the case of K. Chakraborty & Sons Vs. Union of India, which upheld the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in GST appeals. The court quashed the adjudication order and directed the Appellate Authority to consider the condonation application on its merits. If found justified, the appeal should be heard and decided within two months. This decision reinforces the principle that procedural technicalities should not unjustly hinder taxpayers from exercising their legal rights.
