Ramaa Engineering 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. While the appellate authority noted the petitioners' submission regarding the illness of petitioner no. 2 and the supporting medical document, it failed to condone the marginal delay. The Court reasoned that since the appellate authority did not disbelieve the fact of petitioner no. 2's illness, and considering that petitioner no. 2 was a partner and his wife was the other partner, the delay should have been condoned. The Court found that the petitioners were not grossly negligent in pursuing their cause. Accordingly, the appellate order dated July 28, 2025, was set aside, the delay was condoned, and the petitioners' appeal was restored to the file of the appellate authority for consideration on merits. The Court expressly left no issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioners, Ramaa Engineering & Anr., assailed an order dated July 28, 2025, passed by the appellate authority under the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017. This order dismissed their appeal against an order dated June 20, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the Act. The dismissal was solely on the grounds of delay in filing the appeal. The petitioners contended that the delay was attributable to the indisposition of petitioner no. 2, a partner in the firm (petitioner no. 1), and provided medical documentation. The appellate authority acknowledged the illness but rejected the appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority erred in law by dismissing the petitioners' appeal on the ground of delay, despite acknowledging the petitioners' contention of illness and supporting medical documentation, thereby failing to condone the marginal delay? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the illness of petitioner no. 2, a partner in the firm. They submitted that the other partner, petitioner no. 2's wife, could not file the appeal due to this illness. They contended that this situation did not amount to gross negligence, especially given the marginal delay. They relied on the fact that the appellate authority did not disbelieve the illness. Revenue's Argument: The judgment records no specific argument from the State/Revenue.