Ramdiha Mercantile PVT LTD vs. Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax Park Street Charge And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The appellant, Ramdiha Mercantile Private Limited, filed an intra-Court appeal against an order of a learned Single Bench that declined to grant an interim order and directed the filing of an affidavit-in-opposition. The appellant had challenged an adjudication order dated July 9, 2023, passed under Section 73(9) of the WBGST Act, 2017. Their statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, was dismissed as time-barred. The appellant contended that they are a running business concern and sought one more opportunity to present their case. The disputed tax amount is Rs. 21,81,173/-.
Held
The Court, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, decided to grant one opportunity to the appellant to approach the Adjudicating Authority. The Court found that while the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Authority were not at fault for their respective orders (adjudication due to non-participation and dismissal of appeal as time-barred), the appellant's status as a running business concern and their plea for a chance to present their case warranted consideration. The ratio decidendi is that in exceptional circumstances, a High Court may grant a further opportunity to an assessee to present their case before the adjudicating authority, even if statutory appeals have been dismissed on procedural grounds, subject to stringent conditions. The Court directed the appellant to deposit 10% of the total disputed tax (Rs. 21,81,173/-) within 15 days. Upon compliance, the adjudication order would be treated as a show cause notice, and the appellant would have 15 days to file a reply. The Adjudicating Authority would then fix a hearing, consider the appellant's submissions, and pass a fresh order on merits within 15 days of the hearing conclusion.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Appellate Authority was justified in dismissing the statutory appeal as time-barred, considering the appellant's plea for an opportunity to present their case? Petitioner's arguments: The appellant, a running business concern, argued that they should be granted one more opportunity to appear before the Adjudicating Authority, reconcile their accounts, and answer departmental queries. They sought to present all facts and relevant materials. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue or State regarding the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred. However, it notes that the appellant did not participate in the hearing or reply to the show cause notice before the Adjudicating Authority, and the appeal was filed beyond the condonable period prescribed by the statute.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Section 73(9)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Hon'ble Chief Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM)
2
This intra-Court appeal filed on behalf of the writ petitioner is directed against the order dated 04.08.2025 passed in WPA 4710 of 2025 by which the learned Single Bench declined to grant any interim order but directed affidavit-in- opposition to be filed by the respondent/department. Aggrieved by the same the appellant has filed the present appeal. Since the issues involved in the writ petition as well as in appeal are lying in a narrow compass, with the consent of the parties both the writ petition as well as the appeal are heard and disposed of by this common judgment and order.
The appellant had challenged the order passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 by which the appeal was dismissed as time barred. The said appeal was preferred by the appellant by challenging an adjudication order passed under Section 73(9) of the WBGST Act 2017 dated 9th July, 2023. As could be seen from the adjudication order despite opportunity was being granted neither the appellant/assessee participated in the hearing nor submitted any reply to the show cause notice. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority, namely, the Joint Commissioner cannot be faulted for having passed an order of adjudication. So far as the order passed by the Appellate Authority is concerned the same also cannot be faulted since the statutory appeal was filed by the appellant beyond the condonable period prescribed under the statute. However, considering the fact that the appellant/assessee is a running business concern and would submit that reconciliation can be done and all queries raised by the department can be answered and they pray for only one more opportunity to enable them to go before the Adjudicating Authority and put forth all facts and relevant material.
3 Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case we are inclined to grant one opportunity to the appellant to go before the Adjudicating Authority. However, such opportunity is subject to certain conditions.
Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition as well as the appeal and the connected application by directing the appellant to deposit 10% of the total disputed tax, namely, 10% of Rs.21,81,173/- in addition to the deposit, which has already been made by the appellant while preferring the statutory appeal. The appellant is directed to comply with the above condition within 15 days from the date of receipt of the server copy of this order and after producing the deposit challan the appellant shall treat the order of adjudication dated 9th July, 2023 as a show cause notice and submit their reply within 15 days therefrom. Upon receipt of the reply the Adjudicating Authority shall fix a date of personal hearing and after hearing the contentions that may be raised by the appellant as well as the documents that may produce and redo the adjudication and pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 15 days from the date on which the personal hearing is concluded.
Hence, the writ petition as well as the appeal stand disposed of and consequently the connected application also stands disposed of, however, without any order as to costs. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE
I agree. (CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.) RP/SM(AR.CT.)
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.