Jabbar Ahmed vs. Asst. Commi. Of Revenue, Chandni Chowk And Prince Street Charge And Ors.

Held

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner's explanation for the delay in filing the appeal was not entirely satisfactory. However, considering that the petitioner is an individual businessman and that disallowing him an opportunity to contest the adjudication order would lead to the loss of a legal forum, the Court decided to grant him an opportunity to approach the Appellate Authority. The Court directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority and file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within four weeks from the date of the order. Upon furnishing proof of payment to the appellate authority, the authority was directed to hear and consider the petitioner's appeal on merit, without raising any objection regarding the delay. The petitioner was also reminded of his obligation to fulfill all other statutory formalities, including the pre-deposit required under Section 107(6) of the Act.

Facts

The petitioner, Jabbar Ahmed, a businessman, assails an adjudication order dated July 15, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner claims he was unaware of this order until October 2024, when recovery began from his Electronic Credit Ledger. He states his erstwhile accountant failed to inform him, and he only learned of the order in July 2025 upon engaging a new accountant. Consequently, he filed a writ petition before the High Court, seeking an opportunity to contest the adjudication order, as the appeal period had expired.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to file an appeal against the adjudication order dated July 15, 2024, before the Appellate Authority, despite the delay in filing. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argues that due to the non-disclosure by his erstwhile accountant, he remained unaware of the adjudication order and the subsequent recovery actions. He contends that denying him an opportunity to appeal would result in the loss of a forum to contest the validity of the order. He seeks condonation of delay to present his case before the appellate authority. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment does not explicitly record any specific arguments made by the State respondents regarding the petitioner's delay or the merits of his case. However, the Court's observation that the explanation for the delay was 'not appear to be fully satisfactory' suggests the State may have raised concerns about the delay.