Solution Enterprises And Anr. vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Solution Enterprises & Anr., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated March 3, 2025, passed under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. This order rejected their appeal, which arose from an order passed under Section 73 of the said Act. The appeal was rejected due to a marginal delay of 23 days in its filing. The petitioners had made the required pre-deposit. While the appellate authority noted a medical emergency of the petitioner's representative, it rejected the appeal due to insufficient documentation to substantiate this claim. The petitioners also contended they did not receive adequate notice of the original order, contributing to the delayed appeal.
Held
The Court held that while ordinarily discretionary orders are not interfered with, the peculiar facts of the case, including the marginal delay, the noted medical emergency of the petitioner's representative, and the materials on record, warranted interference. The Court found that the appeal should be heard on merits. Consequently, the Court condoned the delay and set aside the order dated March 3, 2025, which had rejected the appeal. The matter was remanded back to the appellate authority for a decision on merits. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appellate authority was justified in rejecting the appeal on the ground of a marginal delay of 23 days, despite the existence of a medical emergency of the petitioner's representative and a claim of inadequate notice of the original order, thereby violating principles of natural justice? (Section 107, WBGST/CGST Act, 2017). The petitioners argued that the delay was marginal and attributable to a genuine medical emergency and lack of proper notice. They contended that the appellate authority should have condoned the delay and heard the appeal on merits. The State argued that the delay was not sufficiently substantiated with appropriate documents, and the appellate authority's decision was a discretionary one, which should not be interfered with.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2025 Item No AD 9 Saswata
WPA 18088 of 2025 Solution Enterprises & Anr. versus State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Himangshu Kumar Ray Mr. Piyas Choudhury Mr. Shiwani Shaw Mr. Gaurav Chakraborty Mr. Pritom Banerjee …For the petitioners Mr. Tanoy Chakrbarty Ms. Sumita Shaw Mr. Saptak Sanyal …For the State
Affidavit of service filed in Court today is retained with the record.
Challenging the order under Section 107 of the WBGST / CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) dated 3rd March, 2025 rejecting the appeal arising out of an order passed under Section 73 of the said Act, the instant writ petition has been filed.
Records would reveal that the petitioners had duly put in the pre deposit while maintaining the appeal. Unfortunately, there was a marginal delay of 23 days in preferring the appeal, and the appeal was rejected on the ground of delay.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and noting that there is a marginal delay in filing the appeal and though the appellate authority had taken note of the medical emergency of the representative of the petitioner no. 1, however, by reasons of the petitioners failing to disclose appropriate document to substantiate the same, the appeal has been rejected. The petitioner also claims that it did not have adequate notice of the order which also resulted in delayed presentation of the appeal.
Though, ordinarily a discretionary order is not to be interfered with, however, having regard to the peculiar facts noted above and the medical emergency of the representative of the petitioner no. 1 and considering the materials on record, I am of the view that the appeal should be heard on merits. Thus, while
2 condoning the delay, I remand the matter back to the appellate authority for a decision on merits. As a sequel thereto, the order dated 3rd March, 2025 rejecting the appeal is set aside.
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
All parties shall act on the basis of server copy of this order duly downloaded from this Court’s official website. (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.