Megacity Cement Private Limited And Anr. vs. Deputy Commissioner, Jorabagan, Kolkata North , West Bengal And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the appellate authority's order dated May 23, 2023, was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. The Court found that the appellate authority's conclusion that the petitioners' appeal was barred by limitation was based on a general observation that communications uploaded on the GST portal are reflected in real-time, without conducting an inquiry to ascertain the actual upload date of the order dated March 10, 2022. The Court noted that it would be difficult for the petitioners to prove the upload date, as this information is solely with the authority uploading the order. Therefore, the appellate authority ought to have tested the veracity of the petitioners' contention with supporting material. The Court directed the appellate authority to first ascertain if the order was uploaded on August 25, 2022. If it was, the appeal would be within time. The appellate authority was also directed to consider the petitioners' submission regarding the upload of only a summary order. If the appellate authority found the order was uploaded prior to August 25, 2022, it could then decide on condoning the delay. The order dated January 31, 2025, was noted as having been rectified.

Facts

The petitioners, Megacity Cement Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., filed a writ petition challenging two orders: an appellate order dated May 23, 2023, which dismissed their appeal against an order dated March 10, 2022, and a subsequent order dated January 31, 2025. The appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority on grounds of limitation. The petitioners contended that they only became aware of the March 10, 2022 order when it was uploaded on the GST portal on August 25, 2022, and filed their appeal within three days thereafter. The appellate authority disbelieved this, stating that communications uploaded on the portal are reflected immediately and the petitioners failed to provide supporting documents. The petitioners also argued that only a summary order was uploaded on August 25, 2022. The second order dated January 31, 2025, was stated to have been inadvertently issued and subsequently rectified.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioners before the appellate authority was within the prescribed limitation period, turning on the date of uploading of the order dated March 10, 2022, under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017. 2. Whether the appellate authority erred in rejecting the appeal solely on the ground of limitation without adequately testing the petitioners' contention regarding the date of uploading of the order. 3. Whether the appellate authority's observation that communications uploaded on the GST portal are reflected in real-time was sufficient to dismiss the petitioners' claim about the upload date. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that the order dated March 10, 2022, was uploaded on August 25, 2022, and their appeal filed on August 28, 2022, was therefore within time. They also contended that only a summary order was uploaded on that date. They relied on the fact that the appellate Tribunal was not functional, justifying their approach to the High Court. Revenue's arguments: The State (respondents) submitted that the second order dated January 31, 2025, was inadvertently issued and a rectification order was subsequently issued on November 14, 2025, nullifying the demand.