Snehasish Paul vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Balurghat Charge And Ors.

Held

The Court held that Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, does not expressly or impliedly exclude the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Relying on the precedent set in S. K. Chakraborty & Sons Vs. Union of India, the Court found that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are attracted to appeals filed under Section 107 of the GST Act. The Court reasoned that statutory provisions on limitation should be interpreted liberally when genuine hardships are demonstrated. Consequently, the appellate authority should have considered the application for condonation of delay on merits. The Court found the petitioner's case meritorious due to procedural irregularities and the arbitrary nature of the actions, leading to the allowance of the writ petition. The appellate order rejecting the appeal on limitation was quashed, and the Appellate Authority was directed to consider and decide the application for condonation of delay on merits. If the delay is condoned, the appeal is to be heard and disposed of on merit.

Facts

The petitioner, Snehasish Paul, approached the High Court challenging an order passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act and WBGST Act for the financial year 2021-2022. The impugned order, dated September 15, 2023, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, demanded ₹35,85,346.04 as interest and penalties, following a show cause notice alleging a tax shortfall of ₹62,75,587.88. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice was issued without a personal hearing, violating natural justice. A partial tax payment of ₹28,26,860/- was made on November 30, 2022. The petitioner also cited severe medical issues and the departure of their accountant as reasons for their inability to respond promptly. An appeal filed on March 27, 2024, under Section 107 of the GST Act, was rejected by the appellate authority on September 30, 2024, solely on grounds of being delayed by 72 days.

Key Issues

1. Whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, are applicable to appeals filed under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, for condonation of delay, given that Section 107 does not expressly exclude the Limitation Act. The petitioner argued that Section 107 does not expressly or impliedly exclude the Limitation Act, 1963, and therefore, the delay in filing the appeal should have been condoned under Section 5 and Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. The respondents did not record any specific arguments on this point in the judgment. 2. Whether the rejection of the appeal solely on the grounds of limitation, without considering the genuine hardships and procedural irregularities, violates the principles of natural justice. The petitioner contended that the appellate authority erred in rejecting the appeal on limitation without considering the medical reasons and other circumstances that caused the delay, thereby violating principles of natural justice.