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
