Dhananjoy De vs. Superintendent Of Central Tax Audit And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the explanation provided by the petitioner for the 27-day delay in filing the appeal was plausible and did not indicate gross negligence or laches on the petitioner's part. Therefore, the delay of 27 days was condoned. Regarding the pre-deposit, the Court found that while the petitioner prima facie appeared to have made out a case for fulfilling the statutory mandate, this aspect required a conclusive decision by the appellate authority. The Court reasoned that the appellate authority needed to re-examine the facts and recalculate the pre-deposit amount in accordance with the law, considering the petitioner's submissions about the disputed amount. The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the appellate authority for a fresh decision. The appellate authority was directed to consider the petitioner's submissions on pre-deposit and proceed to hear the appeal on merits only after being satisfied that the condition was met. The Court explicitly stated it had not expressed any opinion on the pre-deposit aspect, leaving it for the appellate authority to decide.

Facts

The petitioner, Dhananjoy De, assailed an order dated July 24, 2025, passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. This order dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an order dated June 20, 2023, passed under Section 74 of the same Act. The dismissal was based on two grounds: delay in filing the appeal and non-fulfillment of the pre-deposit condition. The appeal was filed with a delay of 27 days, which falls within the condonable period. The petitioner claimed the delay was due to rheumatoid arthritis. Regarding the pre-deposit, the petitioner argued that out of a total demand of Rs. 26,31,154/-, only Rs. 21,53,505/- was disputed, and the balance had been paid. Therefore, the pre-deposit should be 10% of the disputed amount, not the total demand.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 27 days in filing the appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, is liable to be condoned? The petitioner argued that the delay was caused by a debilitating illness (rheumatoid arthritis) and was therefore excusable. The revenue did not appear to have made specific arguments against condonation of delay, but the appellate authority had dismissed the appeal on this ground. 2. Whether the petitioner fulfilled the statutory condition of pre-deposit under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, for preferring the appeal? The petitioner contended that the pre-deposit should be calculated on the disputed tax amount of Rs. 21,53,505/-, not the total demand of Rs. 26,31,154/-, as the admitted portion had already been paid. The revenue, through the appellate authority's order, held that the pre-deposit was not fulfilled based on the total demand.