M/S. Key Business Consultants Private Limited And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Key Business Consultants Private Limited & Anr., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated July 29, 2025, passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017. This order dismissed their appeal against an earlier order dated February 19, 2020, solely on the grounds of delay. The petitioner's initial appeal against a refund rejection order dated April 23, 2020, was filed on September 14, 2020, and dismissed on March 26, 2021, for being delayed. The petitioner argued that at the time of the first appeal, the Supreme Court had extended statutory periods due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Subsequently, a CBIC notification dated November 2, 2023, provided an amnesty scheme allowing appeals dismissed solely on limitation grounds to be refiled by January 31, 2024. The petitioner filed their appeal on January 3, 2024, but it was again dismissed by the impugned order for being delayed by over three years and five months from the prescribed period.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner's appeal, filed on January 3, 2024, was within the time stipulated by the CBIC notification dated November 2, 2023. This notification provided an opportunity for taxable persons whose appeals were dismissed solely on the ground of delay under Section 107 of the said Act of 2017 to file fresh appeals by January 31, 2024. The appellate authority's dismissal of the petitioner's appeal on the same ground of limitation, without considering the effect of the CBIC notification, was erroneous. The Court found that the appellate authority had not applied its mind to the matter in light of the specific provisions of the CBIC notification. Therefore, the impugned appellate order dated July 29, 2025, was set aside. The appeal was restored to the file of the appellate authority for fresh consideration on its merits. The Court did not address the merits of the original refund rejection.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appellate authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal on the ground of delay, contrary to the extension of statutory periods granted by the Supreme Court due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the subsequent amnesty scheme notified by the CBIC on November 2, 2023, thereby turning on Section 107 of the said Act of 2017? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that their initial appeal was dismissed on delay grounds despite the Supreme Court's extensions during the Covid-19 pandemic. They further contended that the CBIC notification dated November 2, 2023, explicitly allowed appeals dismissed solely on limitation grounds to be refiled by January 31, 2024. Their subsequent appeal, filed on January 3, 2024, was within this extended period and should have been considered on merits, not dismissed again for delay. Respondent's Contentions: The respondent CGST Authorities contended that the petitioner's appeal was rejected because it was not in form. However, the Court noted this was not the ground for dismissal in the impugned order.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2026 Sl. 20 Ct. 551 (Samar)
WPA 26981 of 2025
M/s Key Business Consultants Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Union of India & ors.
Mr. Akshay Ringasia,
Mr. Subhamoy Patra, ….for the petitioner.
Mr. Udag Sankar Bhattacharya
Mr. Anurag Roy ….for the respondent CGST.
Affidavit of service as filed today on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.
This writ petition is directed against an order dated July 29, 2025 passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the „said Act of 2017‟) whereby the petitioner‟s appeal against the order dated February 19, 2020 has been dismissed on the ground of delay.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that initially the order dated April 23, 2020 whereby the petitioners‟ request for refund had been rejected in part had been challenged before the appellate authority by filing an appeal on September 14, 2020. 4. Such appeal was dismissed by an order dated March 26, 2021 on the ground of delay. It is
2 submitted that the appellate authority could not have dismissed petitioners‟ appeal on the ground of delay inasmuch as at the time when the petitioners had lodged their appeal before the appellate authority, the statutory period for filing appeals had been extended by orders passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in view of the Covid- 19 pandemic.
It is submitted that subsequently, an amnesty Scheme was floated vide notification dated November 02, 2023 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (hereafter “CBIC”) whereby it was clarified that taxable persons, whose appeals had been dismissed solely on the ground that the said appeals had not been filed within the time period specified in Section 107 of the said Act, 2017, would be entitled to file appeal before the appellate authority on or before January 31, 2024. 6. On the strength of the said notification, the petitioner‟s filed their appeal before the appellate authority on January 3, 2024. By the appellate order impugned herein, the said appeal has also been dismissed on the ground that the appeal has been filed “with a delay of more than 3(three) years and 5 months from the prescribed period of three months from the date of communication of the impugned order to the appellant”.
3
Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the respondent CGST Authorities submits that the petitioner‟s appeal has been rejected inasmuch as the same was not in form.
Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the material on record.
It is evident that the petitioner has filed the appeal (which has been dismissed by the order impugned) within the time specified by and in terms of the notification dated November 2, 2023 whereby taxable persons whose appeals had been rejected solely on the ground of the same being filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed in Section 107 of the said Act of 2017 had been granted option of filing appeal again under Section 107 of the said Act, 2017 on or before January 31, 2024. 10. The appellate authority has however, dismissed the petitioners‟ appeal, again only on the ground of the same having been filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed in the said Act of 2017 and not on the ground that the appeal was not in form as contended by Mr. Bhattacharya.
Once the CBIC notification dated November 2, 2023 granted an option to all persons (whose appeals had suffered rejection on the ground of limitation as aforesaid) to file fresh appeals, and the
4 petitioners lodged their appeal accordingly, appellate authority could not have rejected the petitioners‟ appeal that had been filed in terms of the said Circular citing the bar of limitation in terms of Section 107 of the said Act of 2017 as the ground for such rejection.
Since the appellate authority has evidently not applied its mind to the matter in the light of the said CBIC notification dated November 2, 2023 which permitted persons whose appeals had been dismissed solely on the ground of the same not being filed within the prescribed period of limitation under Section 107 of the said Act of 2017, the appellate order impugned cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the order dated July 29, 2025 is set aside and the appeal is restored to the file of the appellate authority for being considered afresh.
WPA 26981 of 2025 stands disposed of with the above observations. There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied as expeditiously as possible.
(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.