Dee Gee Saw And Metal Works Private Limited And Anr vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Baruipur Charges And Ors

Held

The Court acknowledged that while the petitioners' explanation for the delay might contain some truth, it was not entirely satisfactory. However, considering that the Tribunal, the final fact-finding authority, was not yet functional, and that not allowing the appeal on merits would result in the petitioners losing their forum, the Court decided to grant them one more opportunity. The delay was condoned on the condition that the petitioners pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks and furnish proof of payment to the Appellate Authority. Upon compliance, the Appellate Authority was directed to hear the appeal on merits, and the impugned appellate order dated September 01, 2025, would have no effect. The Court clarified that failure to comply with the payment terms would render this order inoperative. The issue of the merits of the original adjudication order was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioners, Dee Gee Saw and Metal Works Private Limited & Anr, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated September 01, 2025, passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017. This appellate order had dismissed the petitioners' appeal against an adjudication order dated April 08, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the said Act, solely on the grounds of delay. The petitioners contended that they were not informed of the adjudication order by their tax consultant. The Appellate Authority found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory, attributing it to a lack of coordination between the petitioners and their consultant.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Appellate Authority, occasioned by the petitioners' alleged lack of information from their tax consultant, constitutes sufficient cause for condonation under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners argued that they were not informed of the adjudication order dated April 08, 2024, by their tax consultant, and this lack of information led to the delay in filing their appeal. They relied on the explanation provided in their application for condonation of delay. Revenue's Argument: The State, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Baruipur Charge & Ors., argued, through the Appellate Authority's order, that the lack of coordination between the petitioners and their tax consultant did not constitute sufficient cause to condone the delay. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State before the High Court.