Kanai Kumar Saha vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Held

The Court held that while the reasons provided by the petitioner for the delay were not entirely satisfactory, the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to contest the adjudication order on merits before the appellate authority. The Court reasoned that denying this opportunity would deprive the petitioner of a crucial forum for appeal. To balance this, the Court imposed a condition: the petitioner must pay Rs. 10,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks and furnish proof of payment to the appellate authority. If this condition is met, the appellate order dated February 20, 2025, will be set aside, and the appeal will be heard on merits. Failure to comply will render this order ineffective, and the appellate order will stand.

Facts

The petitioner, Kanai Kumar Saha, assails an order dated February 20, 2025, passed by the appellate authority under the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017. This order dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an order dated December 11, 2023, passed under Section 73 of the said Act. The dismissal was solely on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner's consultant's miscommunication was cited as the reason for the delay. The petitioner contended that they have a strong case on merits and no tax is payable, and that denial of an opportunity to challenge the adjudication order would cause significant hardship.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority was justified in dismissing the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of delay, despite the petitioner's explanation for the delay and contention of a strong case on merits, under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to miscommunication by their consultant. They further submitted that they have a meritorious case where no tax is payable and that denying them an opportunity to be heard on merits would cause them substantial prejudice. They sought an opportunity to present their case before the appellate authority. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State/Revenue. However, it notes that the appellate authority disbelieved the reasons cited by the petitioner for the delay.