Lumens Leathers INDIA Limited vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Cx, Range - I, Bishnupur Division, Kol. South Comm. And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Lumens Leathers India Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated November 29, 2024, passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The appeal was rejected because the petitioner failed to deposit the pre-deposit amount within the stipulated time. The petitioner contended that the non-payment was due to inadvertence, especially as the appeal was filed manually. They further stated that they had subsequently tendered the pre-deposit amount on December 11, 2024, through Form GST DRC-03. The respondents, represented by the Superintendent of CGST & CX and others, argued that the appeal was correctly dismissed as the pre-deposit was not made, and no appeal can be entertained without it. They acknowledged that an amount equivalent to the pre-deposit was tendered post-dismissal.
Held
The Court held that while the petitioner admittedly did not make the pre-deposit payment on time, leading to the dismissal of their appeal by the appellate authority, the subsequent tender of the pre-deposit amount on December 11, 2024, through Form GST DRC-03, warranted a different approach. The Court noted that the appellate tribunal was yet to be constituted, and considering the payment made by the petitioner, it would be in the fitness of things to remand the matter back to the appellate authority for a decision on merits. The reasoning was that the substantive issue of the appeal could be decided, and the technical lapse could be condoned given the subsequent compliance and the procedural vacuum of the appellate tribunal. The appellate order dated November 29, 2024, was set aside. The appellate authority was directed to hear and dispose of the appeal on merit expeditiously, preferably within three months from the communication of the order. The ratio decidendi is that substantial compliance with pre-deposit requirements, even post-dismissal, coupled with the absence of a functional appellate tribunal, can justify a remand for a decision on merits.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appellate authority erred in rejecting the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of non-payment of the pre-deposit amount, despite the subsequent tender of the amount and the pendency of the appeal being due to manual filing and inadvertence, thereby turning on Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the non-payment of the pre-deposit was an inadvertent error due to manual filing. They emphasized that the pre-deposit amount was subsequently paid on December 11, 2024, through Form GST DRC-03, and therefore, the appeal should not have been dismissed on this technicality. They relied on the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. Revenue's arguments: The respondents contended that the petitioner admittedly did not make the pre-deposit payment, and as per the law, no appeal can be entertained without fulfilling this mandatory requirement. They argued that the appellate authority acted correctly in dismissing the appeal based on the non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2025
sayandeep Sl. No. 23 Ct. No. 05
WPA 2973 of 2025
Lumens Leathers India Limited Vs. Superintendent of CGST & CX, Range-I, Bishnupur Division, Kolkata South Commissionerate & ors.
Mr. Akshal Agarwal
…. for the petitioner
Mr. Vipul Kundalia, sr. Advocate
Mr. Anurag Roy
Mr. Aayush Sharma
Mr. Dhirodatto Chaudhuri
….. for the CGST authority
Mr. Asis Majumder
….for the UOI
The affidavit-of-service filed in Court today is taken on record.
Challenging the order dated 29th November, 2024 passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the instant writ petition has been filed.
It would transpire from the order impugned that the appeal has been rejected by the reasons of the petitioner failing to make payment of the pre-deposit amount. At the very outset, the learned advocate representing the petitioner would submit that due to inadvertence, the pre-deposit amount could not be deposited in time especially having regard to the fact that the matter had been filed manually. However, post the disposal of the appeal, the petitioner has already tendered the pre-deposit amount by making payment of such sum in form GST DRC- 03 on 11th December, 2024. 4. Learned senior advocate representing the respondents, on the other hand, would submit that admittedly in this case, the petitioner did not make payment of the pre-deposit amount and as such there is no irregularity on the part of the
2 appellate authority in dismissing the appeal. According to him, no appeal can be entertained without making payment of the pre-deposit amount. He, however, does not dispute the fact that post the dismissal of the appeal, an amount equivalent to the pre-deposit amount has been tendered by the petitioner in form DRC-03 on 11th December, 2024 as would appear from page-58 of the writ petition.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and noting that though the petitioner has a further statutory remedy in the form of an appeal before the appellate tribunal, however since the appellate tribunal is yet to be constituted, I am of the view, taking into consideration the fact that the amount equivalent to the pre-deposit amount has already been deposited by the petitioner, in the fitness of things at this stage, it would be prudent to remand the matter back to the appellate authority for a decision on merit.
In view thereof, the appellate order dated 29th November, 2024 stands set aside.
The appellate authority is directed to hear out and dispose of the appeal on merit as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order.
With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is 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.