M/S. Icon Hotels Private Limited And Anr. vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, M/s Icon Hotels Private Limited & Anr., challenged an order dated 23rd July 2024 passed under Section 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, for the tax period April 2019-March 2020. They filed an appeal with a pre-deposit, but it was rejected on 27th January 2025 due to a marginal delay. The petitioners attributed the delay to the neurological disorder of their representative, submitting a discharge summary to the appellate authority. The appellate authority rejected this, deeming the illness not serious enough to prevent filing. During the pendency of the writ petition, Rs. 12,00,000/- was recovered from the petitioners' Electronic Credit Ledger. An attachment was also placed on the petitioner's bank account.
Held
The Court held that the appellate authority was not competent to decide on the seriousness of the petitioners' representative's illness, especially without any dispute from the respondents regarding the fact of the illness. The Court found that the petitioners should have been given an opportunity to have their appeal heard on merits. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the appeal was directed to be heard. Regarding the recovery of Rs. 12,00,000/- from the Electronic Credit Ledger, the Court directed that if this amount was recovered pursuant to the order dated 23rd July 2024 for the specified tax period, it should be re-credited to the petitioners' Electronic Credit Ledger within 5 working days before the appeal is taken up. Furthermore, the attachment of the petitioner's bank account, made concerning the demand for the period April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020, was quashed as the appeal was restored. 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 delay, considering the petitioners' representative's alleged neurological disorder and the submitted medical document? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 and principles of natural justice). The petitioners argued that the appellate authority wrongly assessed the seriousness of the illness and should have considered the medical evidence. They contended that the appellate authority was not competent to opine on medical conditions. The State, through its advocate, raised an objection regarding the recovery of Rs. 12,00,000/- from the Electronic Credit Ledger.
Sections Cited
Section 74, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2025 Item No AD 15 Saswata
WPA 5148 of 2025 M/s Icon Hotels Private Limited & Anr. versus State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Nilotpal Chowdhury Mr. T.K.Mitra …For the petitioners Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty Mr. Saptak Sanyal …For the State
Affidavit of service filed in Court today is retained with the record.
Challenging the order dated 23rd July 2024 passed under Section 74 of the WBGST /CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) for the tax period April 2019-March 2020, an appeal was filed along with pre deposit as is required for maintaining such appeal. Records reveal that there was a marginal delay in preferring the appeal and the appeal was rejected on the ground of delay by order dated 27th January 2025. 3. The representative of the petitioners claims to be suffering from Neurological disorder and had disclosed a discharge summary before the appellate authority. The appellate authority appears to have rejected such document by claiming that the illness does not seem to be serious to prevent the petitioner from filing the appeal.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it is not understood as to how the appellate authority could decide on the seriousness of the illness of the petitioners’ representative. At least from the designation disclosed, it does not appear that the appellate authority was competent to voice any opinion as regards the health of the petitioners or its representative.
Be that as it may, noting the peculiar facts, inter alia, including that the factum of the illness of the petitioners’ representative having not been disputed by the respondents, I am of the view that the petitioners should have been afforded with an 2 opportunity to have the appeal heard out on merits. Accordingly, while condoning the delay, I direct the appeal to be heard.
Mr. Chowhdury, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, however, would submit that during pendency of the writ petition a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- has been recovered from the petitioners’ Electronic Credit Ledger against the demand arising out of the order dated 23rd July 2024 passed under Section 74 of the said Act.
Noting the objection raised by Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the State, I am of the view that in the event the aforesaid deduction or any part or portion thereof has been made from the petitioners’ Electronic Credit Ledger pursuant to the order dated 23rd July 2024 for the tax period April 2019 to March 2020, the amount which has been recovered shall be re-credited to the petitioners’ Electronic Credit Ledger within 5 working days from the date of communication of this order before the appeal is taken up for consideration.
Further, since, the appeal has been restored, the attachment of the petitioner no.1’s bank account vide communication dated 19th November 2024 concerning the demand for the period from 1st April 2019 to 31st March 2020 also cannot be permitted to continue and the same is accordingly quashed.
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.