M/S Auto World vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Revenue, Barasat Charge And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Auto World, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated September 11, 2025, passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017. This order dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an order dated February 25, 2025, passed under Section 73 of the said Act, solely on the grounds of delay. The petitioner had approached the Appellate Authority after the initial three-month period but within the subsequent one-month condonable period. The petitioner explained the delay by citing a change in management and difficulty in finding a suitable consultant to ensure procedural compliance. The Appellate Authority did not accept this explanation.
Held
The Court held that the Appellate Authority's order dismissing the petitioner's appeal on grounds of delay was unsustainable. The Court found that the Appellate Authority had merely rejected the petitioner's explanation without assigning any specific reasons as to why the explanation was not credible. The Court noted that the petitioner's appeal was filed within the condonable period prescribed under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017. The Court reasoned that if the appeal were not entertained even within the condonable period, the petitioner would lose access to a vital fact-finding forum. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order, condoned the delay in filing the appeal, and directed the Appellate Authority to hear the petitioner's appeal on its merits. The Court clarified that it had not adjudicated on the merits of the petitioner's case, leaving all points open for the Appellate Authority to decide.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal on the ground of delay without providing reasons for disbelieving the petitioner's explanation, contrary to the provisions of Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the delay in filing the appeal was due to a change in management and the inability to secure a proper consultant, which prevented timely compliance. They argued that the Appellate Authority's order dismissing the appeal for delay was unsustainable as it failed to provide any reasons for rejecting their explanation, especially since the appeal was filed within the condonable period. The petitioner emphasized that disallowing the appeal within the condonable period would deprive them of a crucial fact-finding forum. Revenue's arguments: The learned Advocate for the respondents contended that the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority was valid and should not be interfered with.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
For all the reasons aforesaid, the order impugned dated September 11, 2025 stands set aside. The delay occasioned in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal filed by the petitioner is directed to be heard by the Appellate Authority on merits.
It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the petitioner’s case and all points are left open to be urged by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority and to be decided by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations W.P.A. 27192 of 2025 stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Om Narayan Rai, J.)
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.