Jai Kumar Jaiswal vs. Superintendent, Central GST, Sainthia Range, Birbhum Division And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Jai Kumar Jaiswal, challenged an order dated 23rd November, 2023, passed in Form GST DRC-07, which imposed a demand of tax amounting to Rs. 13,47,828/- and a penalty of Rs. 1,34,783/-, totaling Rs. 14,82,611/-. This demand was equally segregated under CGST and WBGST. The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority (respondent no. 2). However, the appeal was rejected on July 15, 2024, solely on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner explained that while filling the appeal form GST APL-04, they mistakenly entered 'NA' instead of detailing the period of delay and its reasons. The petitioner had also made a pre-deposit of Rs. 10,900/- as required for the appeal.
Held
The Court held that the rejection of the appeal by the appellate authority on the ground of limitation was not justified, considering the petitioner's bona fide intention and the nature of the mistake. The Court noted that the petitioner is a small businessman and there was no apparent gain in filing a belated appeal. The Court found that the petitioner had made the required pre-deposit, indicating a genuine intent to pursue the appeal. Therefore, the Court quashed the order dated July 15, 2024, passed by the appellate authority. The Court directed the appellate authority to allow the petitioner to file an application for condonation of delay and to hear and dispose of this application. If the delay is condoned, the appellate authority is further directed to hear the appeal on its merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner was granted one month to file the condonation application, and the appellate authority was directed to dispose of it within thirty days of filing.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appellate authority erred in rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation when the delay was due to a bona fide mistake in filling the appeal form, and the petitioner had otherwise complied with pre-deposit requirements? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the rejection of the appeal on limitation was erroneous as the delay was caused by a clerical mistake ('NA' entered instead of reasons for delay) in the appeal form, not by any lack of bona fide. They contended that they had made the required pre-deposit and were a small businessman. They prayed for a direction to allow them to file an application for condonation of delay and for the appellate authority to consider it on merits before deciding the appeal. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the CGST Authority or the Union of India.
Sections Cited
Section 73(9)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
04 jks 05.02.2025 WPA 29452 of 2024 Jai Kumar Jaiswal Vs. Superintendent, Central GST & Ors. Mr. Souradeep Majumdar … … for the petitioners Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee Mr. K. K. Maiti … … for the CGST Authority Mr. Bipul Kumar Mandal Mr. Pradip Kumar Kundu … … for the UOI Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that an order dated 23rd November, 2023 was passed on 19th December, 2023 in Form GST DRC 07, raising a demand of tax of Rs.13,47,828/- along with 10 per cent penalty of Rs.1,34,783/- totaling to Rs.14,82,611/- (equally segregated under CGST and WBGST). Being aggrieved with the order, an appeal was preferred before the appellate authority being the respondent no.
However, the appeal got rejected on the ground of limitation as the petitioner while filling up the form under GST APL-04 instead of explaining the period of delay and the reason of delay wrote “NA” in the portal by mistake and the appellate authority rejected the appeal by an order dated 15th July, 2024 on the ground of limitation. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prays for a direction that the petitioner be allowed to file an application for condonation of delay and to consider the application for the delay before entering into the merits of the case. Admittedly, in this case the petitioner had filed an appeal challenging the order passed under Section 73(9) of the said Act. Simultaneously, with the filing of the appeal, the petitioner had also made a pre-deposit of Rs.10,900/- as is required for maintaining the appeal. As such there is no lack of bona fide on the part of the petitioner in preferring the appeal. There appears to be a delay of 19 days in filing the appeal. Taking into consideration that the petitioner is a small businessman and there is no lack of bona fide on the part of the petitioner and one does not stand to gain by filing a belated appeal, this Court quash the order dated 15th July, 2024, the appellate authority shall allow the petitioner to file an application of condonation of delay. Accordingly, I direct the appellate authority to hear and dispose for the application for condonation of delay and if the delay is condoned then hear the matter on merit upon giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner shall file the application for condonation of delay within one month from date and the application for condonation of delay be heared and disposed within thirty days from the date of filing of the application for condonation of delay. 2
Accordingly, the writ petition being WPA 29452 of 2024 is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Hon’ble Court. (Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.) 3
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.