Swajan Kumar Agarwala vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Held

The High Court held that the appellate authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of delay. The Court observed that the appellate authority had not disbelieved the petitioner's case of illness, which was the reason for the delay. Furthermore, the Court noted that the delay was not unduly long and was attributable to the petitioner's ill health. The Court reasoned that if the delay is a consequence of illness, it ought to have been condoned. Consequently, the order dated February 28, 2025, passed by the appellate authority was set aside. The delay occasioned by the petitioner in preferring the appeal was condoned, and the appeal was restored to the file of the appellate authority for consideration on merits. The Court expressly left no issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Shri Swajan Kumar Agarwala, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated February 28, 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 April 12, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the Act, solely on the grounds of delay. The petitioner contended that he could not file the appeal within the statutory period due to ill health, supported by medical documents. The appellate authority acknowledged the petitioner's illness but rejected the appeal, noting that the petitioner's proprietorship firm continued business operations during the period of illness. The High Court observed that the delay was not unduly long and the reasons for it were not disbelieved.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority erred in law by dismissing the petitioner's appeal on the ground of delay, despite the petitioner's documented ill health as a reason for the delay? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that his ill health prevented him from filing the appeal within the statutory period. He relied on the medical documents annexed to his application for condonation of delay. He submitted that the appellate authority had not disbelieved his case of illness and that the delay was not unduly long. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the State/Revenue regarding the petitioner's contention on delay and illness. However, the appellate authority's reasoning, as noted by the court, was that the petitioner's firm continued business during his illness, implying a lack of diligence.