Snehasish Paul vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Balurghat Charge And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Snehasish Paul, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated September 30, 2024, passed under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. This order rejected the petitioner's appeal for the tax period 2018-2019 on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner contended that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Balurghat Charge, and other respondents are the revenue authorities. The matter was initially decided ex parte by an Adjudicating Authority.
Held
The Court held that the order dated September 30, 2024, rejecting the petitioner's appeal on the grounds of limitation, was arbitrary. The Court found that the petitioner had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Given that the Adjudicating Authority had decided the matter ex parte and the Appellate Authority is better equipped to access records, the Court deemed it appropriate in the interest of justice to remand the matter back to the Appellate Authority for adjudication on merits. The Court set aside the impugned order and the consequent demand raised in the form of APL-04. The ratio is that an appeal should not be rejected on limitation if sufficient cause is shown, especially when the appellate mechanism is not fully functional and the initial adjudication was ex parte.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in rejecting the petitioner's appeal solely on the grounds of limitation, despite the petitioner having sufficient cause for the delay, under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that they had sufficient cause for not being able to file the appeal within the prescribed time. They contended that the order rejecting the appeal on limitation grounds was arbitrary. The petitioner also highlighted that the Appellate Tribunal, which is the statutory remedy, is yet to be constituted, implying a lack of accessible appellate recourse. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State or the Union of India regarding the petitioner's contention of sufficient cause or the merits of the appeal.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
19.05.2025 (M/L) Court No.05. (Pritam) WPA 27182 of 2024
Snehasish Paul
-Vs.-
Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Balurghat Charge & Ors.
Mr. A. Ray, Ld. G.P., Mr. T. M. Siddiqui, Ld. A.G.P., Mr. N. Chatterjee, Mr. T. Chakraborty, Mr. S. Sanyal.
...for the State.
Mr. Debasish Basu, Mr. Arun Bandopadhyay.
....for the UoI.
Challenging the order dated September 30, 2024 passed under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) in respect of the tax period 2018-2019, rejecting the petitioner’s appeal on the ground of limitation, the instant writ petition has been filed.
Having heard the advocates appearing for the respective parties and noting that the petitioner has a statutory remedy in the form of an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, which is yet to be constituted, ordinarily I would have decided the writ petition on merit. However, considering the fact that an Adjudicating Authority had decided the matter ex parte and that the Appellate Authority is far more equipped to access the records and the files from the portal than this court, I am of the view that it would be
2 appropriate and proper and in the interest of justice to remand the matter back to the Appellate Authority for an adjudication on merits, especially when the petitioner had sufficient cause for not being able to file the appeal within the time prescribed and the order of rejection appears to be arbitrary to say the least.
In view thereof, while setting aside the order dated September 30, 2024, I remand the matter back to the Appellate Authority for a decision on merits.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition being WPA 27182 of 2024 is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently the demand raised by the respondents in the form of APL-04 in furtherance of the order dated September 30, 2024 also stands set aside.
(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.