Imran Khan Kadir vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Revenue, State Tax, Colootola And Ezra Street Charge And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Imran Khan Kadir, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated May 22, 2024, passed by the Appellate Authority. This order rejected the petitioner's appeal against an earlier demand raised under Section 73 of the WBSGST/CGST Act, 2017, for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018. The appeal was rejected because the petitioner failed to make the mandatory pre-deposit as required by Section 107(6) of the Act. The petitioner contended that the non-compliance was due to inadvertent error and the complexity of GST law. The respondents are the Deputy Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax, and others.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner's appeal was rejected on technical grounds. Considering that the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the Act is yet to be constituted, the Court decided to grant the petitioner one more opportunity to make the pre-deposit. The order dated May 22, 2024, passed by the Appellate Authority, rejecting the appeal, was set aside. The petitioner was granted liberty to make the pre-deposit within two weeks from the date of the order. If electronic deposit was not possible, manual deposit via demand draft was permitted. Upon making the deposit, the Appellate Authority was directed to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks, after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should condone the petitioner's non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6) of the WBSGST/CGST Act, 2017, and permit the appeal to be heard on merits, given the circumstances. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the failure to make the pre-deposit was an inadvertent error due to the intricacy of GST law. They sought condonation of this irregularity and permission to deposit the required amount so that their appeal could be heard on its merits. Revenue's contention: The judgment records that Mr. Sanyal entered appearance on behalf of the respondents, but it does not explicitly record any specific arguments made by the State's counsel regarding the petitioner's plea for condonation or the merits of the appeal.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 107, Section 107(6), Section 112
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
D/L - 8 18.02.2025 Colootola and Ezra Street Charge & Ors.
Mr. Arya Das, Mr. Amit Kumar Shaw …for the petitioner. Mr. Md. T.M. Siddiqui, Mr. Anirban Ray, Ms. Tanoy Chakraborty, Ms. Sumita Shaw, Mr. Saptak Sanyal …for the State.
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22nd May, 2024 passed by the Appellate Authority in Form GST APL – 02. 2. Records would reveal that originally a show-cause notice was issued under Section 73 of the WBSGST/CGST Act, 2017 on 18th July, 2023 in respect of the Financial Year 2017-2018 for the tax period July, 2017 to March, 2018. The same ultimately culminated in the order dated 20th December, 2023 and a demand was raised in Form GST DRC 07. 3. Challenging the said order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the said Act. Admittedly, no pre-deposit as is required to be made along with the appeal was made by the petitioner. Having regard thereto, by an order
2 dated 22nd May, 2024 the appeal was rejected for non- compliance of the pre-deposit amount as required under Section 107 (6) of the said Act.
Learned Counsel appearing in support of the petition would submit that due to inadvertent error and intricacy of GST law, the petitioner had not complied with the legal mandate of making the pre-deposit. He would submit that this Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 22nd May, 2024 by condoning the irregularity committed by the petitioner and permit the petitioner to make payment of the pre-deposit so that the petitioner’s appeal can be heard on merits.
Mr. Sanyal enters appearance on behalf of the respondents.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and noting that the petitioner’s appeal has been rejected on technical grounds and at present the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the said Act is yet to be constituted, I am of the view that one more opportunity should be granted to the petitioner to make payment of the pre-deposit as required under Section 107(6) of the said Act.
In view thereof, the order dated 22nd May, 2024 passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting the petitioner’s appeal is set aside.
Liberty is granted to the petitioner to make payment of the aforesaid pre-deposit within a period of two weeks
3 from date with the Appellate Authority. In the event, the petitioner makes payment of the aforesaid deposit within the period provided herein, the appeal shall be heard on merits. If, however, for technical reasons the petitioner is unable to deposit the same electronically, the petitioner shall be at liberty to deposit the aforesaid amount manually by a demand draft drawn in favour of such authority as may be specified by the Appellate Authority for ensuring compliance of this order and the same shall be accepted by the Appellate Authority.
The Appellate Authority shall hear out and dispose of the appeal on merits as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of making such pre-deposit upon giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(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.