Shaikh Aslam Ali @ Sk Ali Aslam vs. Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax, Diamond Harbour Charges And Ors

Held

The Court held that the petitioner should not be rendered remediless and that the determination made in the order dated November 16, 2022, ought to be tested by the appellate authority. Following the precedent set by a Coordinate Bench in a similar case involving the petitioner, the Court directed that if the petitioner prefers an appeal within four weeks from the date of the order, the appellate authority shall hear the appeal on merits. This is subject to the petitioner fulfilling the condition of statutory pre-deposit in terms of Section 107(6) of the said Act of 2017. The Court also directed the petitioner to pay costs of Rs. 50,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee prior to filing the appeal. Upon payment of costs and fulfilling the pre-deposit requirement (equivalent to 10% of the tax in dispute), the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek the release of any order of attachment from the appellate authority. The ratio decidendi is that when a petitioner is prevented from availing a statutory remedy due to genuine hardship and a prior order in a similar case exists, the appellate authority should be directed to consider the appeal on merits with appropriate conditions.

Facts

The petitioner, Shaikh Aslam Ali @ Sk Ali Aslam, assails an order dated November 16, 2022, passed under Section 74 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner acknowledges that this order is appealable under Section 107 of the said Act. However, he could not file an appeal due to serious indisposition and dire financial straits, which prevented him from meeting the statutory pre-deposit requirement. The petitioner relies on a previous order dated September 11, 2025, passed by a Coordinate Bench in a similar writ petition concerning the same petitioner and an order of the same date and section, which allowed the petitioner to approach the appellate authority with modified pre-deposit conditions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to appeal against the order dated November 16, 2022, passed under Section 74 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017, despite the statutory time limit for appeal having expired and the petitioner's inability to meet the pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6) of the said Act. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argues that due to serious indisposition and financial hardship, he was unable to file an appeal within the prescribed time and meet the pre-deposit. He relies on a prior order of a Coordinate Bench in his own case (WPA 25558 of 2024) which allowed an appeal against a similar order with relaxed pre-deposit conditions, emphasizing that he should not be rendered remediless. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the State/Revenue regarding the petitioner's inability to appeal or the pre-deposit requirement.