Acme Paints and Resin Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Revenue State Tax & Ors. (Calcutta High Court)
Summary: In the case of Acme Paints and Resin Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax, the Calcutta High Court allowed the Assessee’s appeal despite a delay in filing, due to an oversight by the company’s accountant. The petitioner had filed an appeal under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act against a prior order and had also deposited the required pre-deposit of ₹1,76,141 under Section 107(6) of the Act. However, the appeal was filed late, and the Appellate Authority rejected it for being beyond the time limit under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act. The court acknowledged that the explanation of accountant oversight was inadequate but accepted it in the interest of justice, considering the Assessee’s lack of mala fide intentions and the pre-deposit made. The court set aside the order dismissing the appeal, subject to the Assessee paying a cost of ₹25,000 to the GST authorities. This decision aligns with prior cases emphasizing that while strict timelines apply, bona fide errors and the merits of a case can justify some leniency when substantial compliance is shown.
Introduction: The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Acme Paints and Resin (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax [WPA No. 12250 of 2024 date July 04, 2024] held that since the Assessee had deposited pre-deposit amount and there was no lack of bona fide on part of the Assessee, explanation given by the Assessee that delay in filing appeal was due to an oversight by accountant, though not entirely adequate, was accepted in interest of justice.
