Hara Prasad Das vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the appellate authority had not considered the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in the right earnest. The Court found that the explanation provided by the petitioner, including the death of his advocate and the subsequent time taken to retrieve documents, constituted a sufficiently explained delay. It is not uncommon for delays to occur when an engaged advocate passes away, requiring the petitioner to engage new counsel and gather necessary papers. Consequently, the appellate authority's order dated November 12, 2025, was set aside. The matter was remanded to the appellate authority for a fresh consideration of the petitioner's application for condonation of delay. Furthermore, as the appeal was revived and the pre-deposit amount was paid, the Court directed that recovery of the balance sum be stayed in terms of Section 107(7) of the Act, and the State GST authorities were ordered to lift any attachment or garnishee order on the petitioner's bank account.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Hara Prasad Das, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated November 12, 2025, passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017. This order dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an adjudication order dated August 16, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the said Act, solely on the grounds of delay. The petitioner's application for condonation of delay cited the sickness and subsequent death of his engaged advocate on January 14, 2025, and his own preoccupation with his elder brother's treatment, who also passed away in January 2025. The petitioner stated he only retrieved his papers from the deceased advocate's office on July 10, 2025, and filed the appeal on July 12, 2025. The appellate authority had only considered the petitioner's personal preoccupations and found them insufficient.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority erred in law by not considering the explanation for delay in filing the appeal, as provided in the petitioner's application for condonation of delay, in the right earnest, thereby violating the principles of natural justice? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the delay was occasioned by circumstances beyond his control, specifically the sickness and death of his advocate, and his own personal difficulties. He argued that the appellate authority failed to appreciate these reasons and did not consider the application for condonation of delay with due diligence. The petitioner also highlighted that he had deposited the pre-deposit amount required under Section 107(6) of the Act. State's arguments: The State did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's contentions regarding the delay. The judgment notes the State was represented by counsel but does not detail their submissions on the delay issue.