Tinku Sardar vs. The State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tinku Sardar, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated January 30, 2025, which rejected his appeal. The appeal was against an order dated August 1, 2023, passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner had sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal on medical grounds. The appellate authority, however, evaluated the petitioner's medical report (USG report) and concluded there was no abnormality, leading to the rejection of the appeal. The petitioner argued that the proper officer was not authorized to medically examine his health.
Held
The Court held that the proper officer's independent evaluation of the petitioner's USG report and conclusion on the absence of abnormality was an irregular and illegal exercise of jurisdiction. The proper officer, not being a medical practitioner, was not authorized to opine on the medical report. Consequently, the order dated January 30, 2025, rejecting the appeal, was set aside. The Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The matter was remanded back to the appellate authority to hear and decide the appeal on merit expeditiously, preferably within 12 weeks, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Court noted that the appellate tribunal is yet to be constituted and it would be convenient for the appellate authority to access records on the common portal.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appellate authority, acting as a proper officer under the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, acted irregularly and illegally by independently evaluating the petitioner's medical condition and USG report, rather than considering the grounds for delay on medical grounds without such independent medical assessment? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the proper officer was not authorized to medically examine his health and opine on his USG report, as he is not a medical practitioner. The evaluation of his medical condition by the proper officer was an unauthorized and illegal exercise of jurisdiction. Revenue/State's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State or revenue regarding this issue.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2025
Sayandeep Sl. No. 07 Ct. No. 05 Tinku Sardar Vs. State of West Bengal & ors.
Mr. Akash Dutta
Mr. Aditya Dutta …. for the petitioner
Mr. Anirban Ray, Ld. GP
Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty
Mr. Saptak Sanyal
Mr. D. Sahu
…..for the State
The supplementary affidavit filed in Court today on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.
Challenging the order dated 30th January, 2025 rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner from an order dated 1st August, 2023 passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the instant writ petition has been filed.
Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and noting that the petitioner may have been prevented with sufficient cause for not filing
the appeal within the prescribed period and also considering the fact that the petitioner had sought for condonation on medical grounds ordinarily the petitioner’s case ought to have been considered without the proper officer medically examining the petitioner’s health since he is not authorized to do so.
In the instance case, it appears that not only has the proper officer evaluated the USG report of the petitioner, he has also ascertained from such report that there is no abnormality. The above in my view is not only an irregular exercise of juri iction but is also an illegal act. The proper officer could not have independently evaluated the petitioner’s medical condition, since, the appellate authority at best may be a proper officer within the meaning of the said Act and is not a medical practitioner for him, to have opined on the USG report.
Be that as it may, considering the fact that the petitioner has a right to prefer an appeal before the appellate tribunal and noting that the appellate tribunal is yet to be constituted and it would be far more convenient for the appellate authority to gain access to the record of the case which are available on the common portal, I am of the view that the matter should be remanded back to the appellate authority.
As a consequence thereto, the order dated 30th January, 2025 is set aside.
Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The appellate authority has directed to hear out and decide the appeal on merit as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of communication of this order upon giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The writ petition is thus, disposed of.
(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.