M/S. Onward Plastic PVT. LTD. vs. The Senior Joint Commissioner Of Revenue, Howrah Circle And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
M/s. Onward Plastic Pvt. Ltd. (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging an order dated May 20, 2025, which rejected their appeal filed under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The appeal was rejected solely on the grounds of delay. The underlying adjudication order under Section 73 of the said Act was dated April 4, 2024, pertaining to the tax period April 2018 to March 2019. A rectification order was passed on June 7, 2024. The petitioner contended that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the key person responsible for GST matters being on medical leave due to serious health issues. They claimed to have learned of the adjudication order only after the rectification order was issued.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner's explanation for the delay in filing the appeal ought to have been considered more appropriately. The Court noted that there was a delay of 20 days, which the appellate authority found to be without a plausible explanation. However, the Court found the explanation provided by the petitioner to be sufficient for condonation, especially considering the marginal delay. The Court also took into account that the petitioner had already made a pre-deposit of Rs. 5,81,766/- and that the Appellate Tribunal was yet to be constituted. Therefore, the Court directed that the appeal should be heard on merits. The order dated May 20, 2025, rejecting the appeal was set aside, and the appellate authority was directed to hear the appeal on merits expeditiously, preferably within twelve weeks. Consequently, the attachment order issued in Form GST DRC 13 dated August 29, 2025, was also set aside.
Key Issues
1. Whether the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, should have been condoned by the appellate authority, considering the explanation provided by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the delay was caused by the critical illness of their GST manager, and they only became aware of the adjudication order after a subsequent rectification order. They sought an opportunity to present their case on merits. The State (represented by the Senior Joint Commissioner of Revenue) contended that the petitioner failed to provide a plausible explanation for the delay, leading to the rejection of the appeal by the appellate authority.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
16 22.09.2025 sb
Ct.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURI ICTION APPELLATE SIDE M/s. Onward Plastic Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Senior Joint Commissioner of Revenue, Howrah Circle & Ors.
Ms. Megha Agarwal
… For the petitioner.
Mr. N. Chatterjee
Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty
Mr. Saptak Sanyal
… For the State.
Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record.
Challenging the order dated 20th May, 2025, rejecting the appeal filed under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) on the ground of delay, arising out of the adjudication order passed under Section 73 of the said Act dated 4th April, 2024, for the tax period April, 2018 to March, 2019, as also the order of rectification dated 7th June, 2024, the instant writ petition has been filed.
According to the petitioner, there had been a delay in filing the appeal since, the key person responsible for GST matters and managing the GST portal was on medical leave due to serious health issues. The petitioner claims to have come to learn with regard to the above order of adjudication only after the rectification order dated 7th June, 2024 was passed. Accordingly, the petitioner seeks interference and the opportunity to place the case on merits.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, I find that there was a delay of 20 days in filing the appeal. The appellate authority has, however, noted that the petitioner has failed to cater any plausible explanation. Having regard to the case made out and noting the materials on record, I am, however, of the view that the petitioner’s case for condonation of delay ought to have been considered more appropriately in the light of the explanation provided by the petitioner. Noting that the petitioner has already put in pre-deposit of Rs.5,81,766/- and also the fact that the delay is only marginal and had been duly explained, and that the Appellate Tribunal is yet to be constituted, the appeal should be heard on merits.
Accordingly, while setting aside the order dated 20th May, 2025, I direct the appellate authority to hear out the appeal on merits, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of communication of this order.
As a sequel thereto, the attachment order issued in Form GST DRC 13 dated 29th August, 2025 stands set aside.
With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for be given to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.