Case Law Details
Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited Vs State of West Benal & Ors. (Calcutta High Court)
Calcutta High Court addressed a writ petition by Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited (RINL), a central public sector undertaking, challenging the rejection of its GST appeal on grounds of limitation. RINL contended that the appellate authority dismissed its appeal without considering the merits, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The dispute originated from a mismatch in GST returns for July 2017–March 2018, leading to a demand notice for tax dues. However, the notices were uploaded solely on the GST portal without conventional communication, resulting in RINL’s lack of awareness. An ex-parte order confirming the demand was issued, and when RINL later appealed, the delay of 246 days led to outright rejection. The company then sought relief from the High Court, arguing that the appellate authority failed to consider the genuine reasons behind the delay.
Upon review, the High Court found that RINL had sufficiently justified the delay in filing the appeal. It observed that the appellate authority dismissed the case mechanically without assessing whether RINL was genuinely unaware of the impugned order. Citing legal precedents, the Court highlighted that under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, the appellate authority has the discretion to condone delays beyond the statutory period. Consequently, the High Court set aside the rejection order and directed the appellate authority to hear the appeal on merits, ensuring a fair hearing within twelve weeks. The petition was thus disposed of, reaffirming the necessity of procedural fairness in GST adjudication.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking judicial intervention to quash the impugned order passed by the appellate authority rejecting the petitioner’s appeal solely on the grounds of The petitioner contends that it is a central public sector undertaking and that such rejection, without addressing the merits of the appeal, violates principles of natural justice and denies the petitioner a fair opportunity to present its case.
2. The facts in a nutshell are that the petitioner, a Central Public Sector Undertaking registered under GST in West Bengal, is engaged in supplying steel The entity is a bona fide tax-compliant organization that transitioned to the GST regime in July 2017.
3. During April–June 2017, the petitioner carried forward CENVAT credits amounting to ₹6,75,27,861/- and service tax credits of ₹8,95,695/-. These were transitioned to the GST regime via Form GST TRAN-1.
4. A mismatch was noted by the respondent in the petitioner’s GST returns for July 2017–March 2018, leading to the issuance of an ASMT-10 notice and subsequent demand for ₹9,28,787/- under CGST and ₹33,092/- under
5. Notices were uploaded in the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab on the GST portal, bypassing regular communication modes, resulting in the petitioner’s unawareness of proceedings.
6. An ex-parte order dated August 08, 2023 confirmed the demand, prompting the petitioner to file an appeal on July 11, The appeal was delayed by 246 days due to procedural anomalies.
7. The respondent rejected the appeal on grounds of limitation without considering the merits, compelling the petitioner to seek recourse before this Hon’ble Court.
8. Upon a thorough examination of the documents presented to the Court and taking into account the arguments put forth by the parties, this Court finds that the petitioner has adequately explained the reasons for the delay in filing the Regrettably, the appellate authority failed to appropriately consider this aspect and proceeded to summarily observe that, since the appeal was filed after a delay of 246 days, no reasonable cause was demonstrated for the delay.
9. While the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the judgment in Anhad Impex & v. Assistant Commissioner Ward 16 Zone 2 Delhi & Ors. reported in 2024 (2) TMI 1070 (Del HC), sought to argue that the initial determination under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act was vitiated by a breach of natural justice principles, this Court is of the view that it is belated for the petitioner to raise such contentions before this Court under its extraordinary writ jurisdiction, especially after having availed the appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Act.
10. However, it is evident that the appellate authority mechanically dismissed the application for condonation of delay as well as the appeal, without adequately considering the petitioner’s lack of knowledge regarding the impugned order’s Such an omission renders the appellate order perverse.
11. It is pertinent to note the Division Bench ruling in S.K. Chakraborty & Sons v. Union of India reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 4759, wherein it was held that the appellate authority is empowered to condone delays extending beyond the statutory period under Section 107(4) of the Act.
12. In light of the above, the order dated September 25, 2024, passed by the appellate authority is unsustainable and is accordingly Considering the explanation provided by the petitioner, this Court deems it unnecessary to remit the matter to the appellate authority for reconsideration of the application for condonation of delay. Instead, by condoning the delay, the appellate authority is directed to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits after affording the petitioner an opportunity for a fair hearing, preferably within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
13. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
14. All pending applications are accordingly disposed of.
15. There shall be no order as to costs.
16. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon fulfilment of requisite formalities.
Author Bio
