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 18th July 2024 passed under Section 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, for the tax period April 2023-March 2024. They filed an appeal with a pre-deposit, but it was rejected on 27th January 2025 due to a marginal delay. The petitioners attributed this 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 the filing of the appeal. During the pendency of the writ petition, Rs. 12,00,000/- was recovered from the petitioners' Electronic Credit Ledger against the demand. An attachment of the petitioner's bank account, dated 19th November 2024, was also in place concerning the same demand.
Held
The Court held that the appellate authority was not competent to opine on the seriousness of the petitioner's representative's illness, as it was beyond their purview. The Court noted that the fact of the illness was not disputed by the respondents. Therefore, the petitioners should have been given an opportunity to have their appeal heard on merits. The Court condoned the delay and directed the appeal to be heard. Regarding the recovery, the Court directed that if the Rs. 12,00,000/- or any part thereof was recovered from the petitioners' Electronic Credit Ledger pursuant to the order dated 18th July 2024, it should be re-credited within 5 working days from the communication of the order, before the appeal is taken up. Furthermore, since the appeal was restored, the attachment of the petitioner's bank account was quashed as it could not continue pending the appeal. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appellate authority erred in rejecting the appeal on grounds of delay, considering the petitioner's representative's alleged neurological disorder, and whether the appellate authority was competent to assess the seriousness of the illness? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and the scope of appellate authority's powers). 2. Whether the recovery of Rs. 12,00,000/- from the Electronic Credit Ledger and the attachment of the bank account were justified pending the appeal on merits? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioners argued that the appellate authority wrongly assessed the seriousness of their representative's illness and should have considered the medical documentation. They contended that the recovery from the Electronic Credit Ledger and the bank account attachment were premature and unjustified, especially since the appeal was not heard on merits. State's contentions: The State, represented by Mr. Chakraborty, raised objections regarding the recovery from the Electronic Credit Ledger.
Sections Cited
Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2025 Item No AD 18 Saswata
WPA 5155 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 Mr. Debraj Sahu …For the State
Affidavit of service filed in Court today is retained with the record.
Challenging the order dated 18th July 2024 passed under Section 74 of the WBGST /CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) for the tax period April 2023-March 2024, 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. Chowdhury, 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 18th 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 18th July 2024 for the tax period April 2023 to March 2024, the amount which has been recovered should 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 2023 to 31st March 2024 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.