Monoj Kumar Singh vs. The State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the delay occasioned in filing the appeal before the appellate authority ought to have been condoned. The reasoning was that the petitioner's engaged advocate, who was handling their GST matters, expired during the pendency of the case. The petitioner subsequently engaged another advocate and filed the appeal within a reasonable period. The Court found that these circumstances did not indicate any lackadaisical attitude or gross negligence on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, the appellate authority's order dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay was set aside. The delay was condoned, and the petitioner's appeal was restored to the file of the appellate authority for consideration on merits. The appellate authority was directed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with the law. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Monoj Kumar Singh, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated June 2, 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 earlier order dated April 22, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the said Act. The petitioner's appeal was filed belatedly because the learned advocate initially engaged to prepare and file the appeal fell ill and subsequently expired on January 8, 2025. The petitioner then had to engage another advocate, causing further delay. The appellate authority did not condone this delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay occasioned in filing the appeal before the appellate authority ought to have been condoned by the appellate authority, considering the circumstances presented by the petitioner? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the delay was unavoidable due to the unfortunate demise of their engaged advocate, who was handling their GST matters. They contended that they acted diligently by engaging a new advocate and filing the appeal within a reasonable period thereafter, and that their conduct did not demonstrate any lackadaisical attitude or gross negligence. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State (Revenue) regarding the condonation of delay.