Calcutta HC provides Relief to Petitioner Amid absence of GST Appellate Tribunal

Amit Kumar Singh Vs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (Calcutta High Court)

In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court addressed the challenges faced by taxpayers due to the non-constitution of the GST Appellate Tribunal. The case, Amit Kumar Singh Vs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, highlights the court’s consideration of financial constraints and procedural delays, providing interim relief to the petitioner.

Amit Kumar Singh filed a writ petition challenging the order dated March 30, 2023, under Section 74 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the appellate order dated January 9, 2024, under Section 107 of the same Act. The crux of the petition was the absence of an Appellate Tribunal as mandated by Section 112 of the Act, which left the petitioner without a viable appellate mechanism.

Petitioner’s Argument:

• Advocate Roy Choudhury argued that the absence of the GST Appellate Tribunal impeded the petitioner’s right to appeal.
• Highlighted the financial hardships due to the Covid-19 pandemic, seeking exemption from the pre-deposit required under Section 112.

Respondent’s Argument:

• Advocate Siddiqui for the State contended that despite the tribunal’s non-constitution, the petition should not proceed unless the petitioner pays or secures the taxes determined by the authorities.

Court’s Consideration

The Court, upon reviewing the materials and hearing both parties, decided that the matter warranted a detailed hearing. Recognizing the petitioner’s financial constraints, the Court directed a pragmatic solution:

• The petitioner was instructed to deposit 5% of the remaining disputed tax amount, in addition to what was already deposited under Section 107(6).
• Upon compliance, any further demands based on the January 9, 2024 order would be stayed until September 2024 or further orders.

Procedural Directives

• The petitioner must compile and submit all documents presented before the Appellate Authority in a paper book format.
• The State was directed to ensure the availability of records from the Appellate Authority during subsequent hearings.
• The case was listed for the Combined Monthly List of July 2024.

Conclusion

The Calcutta High Court’s decision in Amit Kumar Singh Vs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax underscores the judiciary’s role in addressing procedural lacunae and providing interim relief amidst systemic delays. This ruling offers a temporary respite to taxpayers awaiting the operationalization of the GST Appellate Tribunal, ensuring that justice is not unduly hindered by administrative delays.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record.

2. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the order dated 30^th March, 2023 passed under Section 74 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), as also the appellate order dated 9th January, 2024, passed under Section 107 of the said Act.

3. Roy Choudhury, learned advocate representing the petitioner submits that an appeal is maintainable from the order passed under Section 107 of the said Act before the Appellate Tribunal. Unfortunately, no Appellate Tribunal within the meaning of Section 112 of the said Act has been constituted. In such circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. It is submitted that there are substantial grounds for maintaining an appeal under Section 112 of the said Act. By drawing attention of this Court to page 42 of the writ petition, it is submitted that by reasons of Covid-19 pandemic, the petitioner suffered immensely and unless, this Court exempts the petitioner from making payment of the pre-deposit ordinarily required for maintaining the appeal in terms of Section 112 of the said Act, the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss.

5. Siddiqui, learned advocate representing the State respondents on the other hand, submits that although, the writ petition may be maintainable by reasons of the Appellate Tribunal not being constituted, however, the instant writ petition should not be entertained unless, the petitioner pays the taxes, already determined, or secures the same.

6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having considered the materials on record, I am of the view that this matter should be heard.

7. Having regard to the aforesaid and taking into consideration the financial constraints of the petitioner, I am of the view that justice would be sub-served if the petitioner is directed to deposit with the GST authorities the sum equal to 5 % of the remaining amount of tax in dispute, in addition to the deposit already made under sub-section (6) of Section 107 of the said Act.

8. In the event, the aforesaid payment is made within a period of two weeks from date, demand, if any, raised by the respondents in terms of the order dated 9th January, 2024, shall remain stayed till the end of September, 2024, or until further order, whichever is earlier.

9. Since the parties agree that the writ petition can be disposed of on the basis of the records available before the Appellate Authority, I direct the petitioner to enclose all documents filed before the Appellate Authority in a compilation, in the form of a paper book.

10. Let such paper book be filed on/or before the matter is taken up next, with an advance copy thereof to the learned advocate representing the respondents.

11. The respondents are also directed to ensure that the records of the Appellate Authority are placed before this Court, when the matter is taken up next.

12. List this matter in the Combined Monthly List of July, 2024.