Rajeev Agarwal vs. Deputy Commissiner Of Revenue, State Tax, Taltala Charge And Ors.

Held

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner's explanation for the delay was not fully satisfactory. However, it noted the absence of a GST Tribunal, which would leave the petitioner without a forum to challenge the order if the writ petition were not entertained. Consequently, the Court decided to grant the petitioner one more opportunity to contest the appeal on merits. This was conditioned upon the petitioner paying a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee within three weeks and furnishing proof of payment to the appellate authority. Upon compliance, the delay would stand condoned, and the appellate authority would proceed to hear the appeal on merits, rendering the August 5, 2025 order ineffective. If the payment was not made, the August 5, 2025 order would remain effective. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Rajeev Agarwal, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated August 5, 2025, passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017. This appellate order dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an order dated March 7, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the said Act. The dismissal was solely on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner explained the delay by citing the death of a close family member, the subsequent departure of his accountant, and the time taken to engage a new accountant and advocate to prepare the appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the appellate authority, occasioned by personal and professional circumstances, warrants condonation under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017, despite the explanation not being fully satisfactory? The petitioner argued that the delay was due to unavoidable personal reasons (death of a family member) and professional disruptions (accountant leaving). He contended that since there is no GST Tribunal available to challenge the impugned order, he would be left without a remedy if the appeal were not entertained. The State (respondents) argued that the explanation for the delay was not fully satisfactory, implying that the statutory requirements for condonation might not have been met.