Umesh Kumar Agrawal vs. Deputy Commi. Of State Tax Jorasanko And Jorabagan Charge And Ors.

Held

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner's explanation for the delay was not entirely satisfactory. However, it considered two crucial factors: firstly, that the petitioner had no other recourse to challenge the appellate order as the GST Tribunal, the next appellate forum, was not yet functional. Secondly, the appeal had not been decided on its merits. Therefore, the Court was of the view that the petitioner should be granted another opportunity to pursue their appellate remedy. To this end, the Court directed that if the petitioner pays a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee within three weeks and provides proof of payment to the appellate authority, the delay will be condoned, and the appellate authority will proceed to hear the appeal on merits. The Court clarified that this order would be void if the payment terms were not met.

Facts

The petitioner, Umesh Kumar Agarwal, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated July 29, 2025, passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST, 2017. This appellate order had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an order dated December 18, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the said Act. The dismissal was on the grounds of a four-month delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner contended that the delay was due to a lack of knowledge of the impugned order, as neither the show cause notice nor the final order was physically served or communicated, other than by uploading on the GST portal. The petitioner only became aware of the order upon receiving a recovery notice via email on July 8, 2025.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of delay, considering the explanation provided for the delay? 2. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to present their appeal on merits, given the non-functionality of the GST Tribunal and the absence of a decision on the merits of the original appeal? The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal was attributable to the lack of proper communication of the order, as it was only uploaded on the GST portal and not physically served or emailed. They relied on the explanation provided in their application for condonation of delay and further submissions before the appellate authority. The State (respondent) did not record any specific arguments against the condonation of delay in the judgment, but the appellate authority had dismissed the appeal on this ground.