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

Held

The Court held that the facts of this case are similar to those before a Coordinate Bench in WPA 25558 of 2024, and therefore, there was no reason to take a different view. The Court directed that the appellate authority shall ascertain whether a sum in excess of 10% of the tax in dispute has already been recovered from the petitioner. If it is found that more than 10% has been recovered, the appellate authority shall proceed to hear the appeal on merits without insisting on any further pre-deposit. However, if less than 10% has been recovered, the appellate authority shall accept a pre-deposit equivalent to 10% of the tax in dispute and then hear the appeal on merits. The Court also directed the petitioner to pay costs of Rs. 50,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee, as imposed in the previous similar order, due to the belated approach to the Court. Upon payment of costs, the petitioner is at liberty to seek the release of any attachment order from the appellate authority, provided the appeal is filed within the stipulated time and the pre-deposit or recovery condition is met. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations.

Facts

The petitioner, Shaikh Aslam Ali, assails an order dated November 16, 2022, passed under Section 74 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner could not file an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the said Act due to serious indisposition and financial constraints, which prevented him from making the required pre-deposit. The petitioner relies on a previous order dated September 11, 2025, passed by a Coordinate Bench in a similar case (WPA 25558 of 2024), which also involved an order of the same date and under the same section. In that prior case, the Court directed the appellate authority to hear the appeal on merits if a certain percentage of the disputed tax was recovered or deposited, and also imposed costs. The revenue did not dispute the facts presented by the petitioner regarding the recovery of a portion of the tax in dispute.

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 delay and inability to make the full pre-deposit, considering the circumstances of indisposition and financial hardship, and in light of a previous order of this Court in a similar matter? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 107 of the said Act of 2017). Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that due to serious indisposition and dire financial straits, he was unable to approach the appellate authority within the prescribed time and make the necessary pre-deposit. He relied on a coordinate bench's order in WPA 25558 of 2024, which allowed a similar petitioner to appeal on merits by depositing a reduced amount or upon ascertainment of recovery of a portion of the disputed tax, and also imposed costs. The petitioner submitted that the facts of the present case are similar to the cited precedent. Revenue's contentions: The revenue, represented by Mr. Chakraborty, did not dispute the petitioner's submission that a sum in excess of 10% of the tax in dispute had already been recovered by the respondent GST authorities.