Eximpo Tea Limited vs. Additional Commissioner Of Revenue GST Appellate Authority Dharamtala Circle And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the appellate authority had failed to consider the grounds provided by the petitioner for the delay, particularly the illness of the mother of the promoter-director who is the authorized signatory. The Court found that the reasons assigned by the petitioner for the marginal delay did not indicate gross negligence. Consequently, the Court condoned the marginal delay occasioned by the petitioner in preferring the appeal. The order dated October 29, 2025, passed by the appellate authority, was set aside. The appeal was restored to the file of the appellate authority for a fresh decision on merits. Furthermore, since the appellate order was set aside, the attachments made to the petitioner's bank accounts, based on the now-superseded adjudication and appellate orders, were ordered to be lifted.

Facts

The petitioner, Eximpo Tea Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated October 29, 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 adjudication order dated June 5, 2025, passed under Section 73 of the Act, solely on the grounds of delay. The petitioner contended that the delay of 35 days beyond the extended period was due to the serious illness of the mother of its authorized signatory and its dire financial straits. Despite making the statutory pre-deposit, the petitioner's bank accounts were attached based on the adjudication order, which was upheld by the appellate order being challenged.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal on the ground of delay, considering the reasons provided by the petitioner? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 107(4) of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the delay was caused by extenuating circumstances, specifically the severe illness of the mother of its authorized signatory and the petitioner's financial difficulties, which prevented timely filing. They submitted medical documents to support their claim and highlighted that the delay was marginal. They also pointed out that despite the delay, they had complied with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6) of the Act. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or the respondent authorities.