Arup Kumar Chatterjee vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Bureau Of Investigation (South Bengal) And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the appellate authority under Section 107 of the said Act of 2017 has no power to waive the mandatory condition of pre-deposit under Section 107(6). Therefore, the impugned order dismissing the appeal on this ground cannot be faulted. However, considering that the petitioner could not press his appeal on merits due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit, and the appellate tribunal has not yet become functional, the Court granted the petitioner one more opportunity to avail the appellate remedy. The Court directed that if the petitioner deposits an amount equivalent to 10% of the balance amount of tax yet to be recovered (after the already recovered sum of Rs.19,27,508/-) within two weeks, the appellate authority shall hear the appeal on merits. The impugned order dated May 12, 2023, shall be treated as set aside in such an event. The issue of the appellate tribunal's functionality was noted as a factor in granting this relief.

Facts

The petitioner, Arup Kumar Chatterjee, assails an order dated May 12, 2023, 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 order dated November 16, 2022, passed under Section 74 of the said Act. The dismissal was due to non-compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6) of the Act. The petitioner explains the delay in approaching the High Court by citing financial hardship due to substantial sums recovered pursuant to the demand order and a wait for the appellate tribunal to become functional.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority, under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017, has the power to waive the mandatory pre-deposit condition stipulated in Section 107(6) of the said Act. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that due to substantial sums being recovered, he faced dire financial straits. He also waited for the appellate tribunal under Section 112 to become functional. Since the tribunal did not become functional, he had to approach the High Court. The petitioner argued that not being afforded an opportunity to press his appeal on merits would result in the loss of a forum. Revenue's arguments: The respondents, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and others, argued that the appellate authority has no power to waive the mandatory pre-deposit condition. They submitted that the dismissal order cannot be faulted on this ground.