Rathindra Nath Halder vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the delay occasioned by the petitioner in preferring the appeal before the appellate authority was not due to laches or a lackadaisical attitude. The Court considered the nature of the case and the explanation provided by the petitioner, including his illness and the difficulty in arranging funds for the pre-deposit. The medical documents, even though some were presented for the first time before the High Court, indicated that the petitioner was unwell. Consequently, the Court found no negligence on the petitioner's part in pursuing his cause. The delay was condoned, the appellate authority's order dated January 17, 2025, was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the appellate authority to consider the petitioner's appeal on its merits and dispose of it in accordance with law. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Shri Rathindranath Halder, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated January 17, 2025, passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017. The appellate authority had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an earlier order dated December 14, 2023, solely on the grounds of the appeal being filed belatedly. The petitioner contended that the delay was due to his own illness and the illness of a family member suffering from cancer. Additionally, upon recovering, he faced difficulties in arranging funds for the mandatory statutory pre-deposit. Medical documents supporting his illness were annexed to the writ petition, though not presented to the appellate authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the appellate authority, occasioned by the petitioner's illness and financial constraints for pre-deposit, should be condoned under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that the delay was not due to negligence or a lackadaisical attitude but resulted from genuine personal illness and the need to arrange funds for the statutory pre-deposit. He submitted medical documents to substantiate his claims. The State did not appear to have made any specific arguments against the condonation of delay, as the judgment focuses on the petitioner's submissions and the court's assessment of them.