Chanda Construction And Anr. vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the appellate authority erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without providing adequate reasons for rejecting the condonation application. The Court noted that the appellate authority did not disbelieve the fact of the petitioner's working partner's illness, which was the reason cited for the delay. Given that the illness was substantiated and the delay was marginal, the Court found that the petitioner was not grossly negligent. The Court reasoned that disallowing the appeal on a technicality would cause the petitioner to lose an important forum for adjudication on merits. Therefore, the delay in preferring the appeal was condoned. The impugned order dated June 26, 2025, was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the file of the appellate authority for a fresh decision on merits.

Facts

The petitioners, Chanda Construction & Anr., are challenging an order dated June 26, 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 August 7, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the said Act. The dismissal was solely on the grounds of delay in filing the appeal. The petitioners had sought condonation of delay before the appellate authority, citing the serious illness of their working partner, and had annexed supporting documents. The appellate authority did not accept the reasons for delay without providing any specific reasons for such non-acceptance, although it did not dispute the fact of the partner's illness.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority erred in law by dismissing the petitioners' appeal on the ground of delay without providing adequate reasons for rejecting the condonation application, and without disbelieving the stated cause of illness of the working partner, as contemplated under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the serious illness of their working partner, supported by documentary evidence. They contended that the appellate authority failed to provide specific reasons for not accepting the condonation application and did not dispute the fact of illness. They further argued that the delay was marginal and that disallowing the appeal on technical grounds would deprive them of a forum to argue their case on merits. Revenue/State's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State or revenue.