Pramod Kumar Jaiswal vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned order dated February 27, 2024. The Court found the petitioner's case meritorious, holding that the delay in filing the appeal was due to circumstances beyond his control. It criticized the rigid approach of the Appellate Authority, stating it failed to account for genuine extenuating circumstances and reflected a lack of judicial empathy. The dismissal of the appeal solely on timing was deemed legally unsound. Furthermore, the Court acknowledged that the petitioner's right to further appeal was obstructed by the non-formation of the GST Appellate Tribunal. Citing the Calcutta High Court's decision in S.K. Chakraborty & Sons Vs. Union of India, the Court held that Section 107 of the Act does not expressly or impliedly exclude Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Therefore, the Appellate Authority has the power to extend the period for filing an appeal if the explanation for the delay is found sufficient. The Appellate Authority was directed to consider and decide the petitioner's application for condonation of delay on merits and, if accepted, to hear and dispose of the appeal on merit.

Facts

The petitioner, Pramod Kumar Jaiswal, proprietor of A K Enterprise, challenges an order by the Appellate Authority (respondent no.2) refusing to condone the delay in filing an appeal against an order dated May 18, 2023, passed by the Deputy Commissioner (respondent no.3) under Section 73(9) of the WBGST Act, 2017. This order confirmed a demand of ₹11,29,406.00, plus penalties and interest. The petitioner engaged an advocate in August 2023 to file the appeal, but the advocate failed to do so. The petitioner eventually filed the appeal on February 27, 2024, which was rejected as time-barred. The petitioner also contends that the original order was passed without a personal hearing, violating principles of natural justice, and that the non-formation of the GST Appellate Tribunal obstructs his statutory right to further appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal against the order dated May 18, 2023, considering the circumstances presented by the petitioner? 2. Whether the original order dated May 18, 2023, was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice due to the absence of a personal hearing, as stipulated by Section 75(4) of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017? 3. Whether the non-formation of the GST Appellate Tribunal infringes upon the petitioner's constitutional and statutory rights to appeal? Petitioner's arguments: The delay in filing the appeal was due to circumstances beyond his control, specifically the failure of his initially engaged advocate. The original order was passed without a personal hearing, violating Section 75(4) of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017. The non-formation of the GST Appellate Tribunal obstructs his right to appeal, infringing his constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, and 300A. The impugned order should be quashed. Revenue's arguments: The appeal filed on January 12, 2024, was significantly beyond the statutory period of three months under Section 107(1) of the WBGST Act, 2017, and the permissible extension of one month under Section 107(4) for compelling circumstances. The respondent authority has no discretionary power to accept appeals filed beyond the specified deadline. Reliance was placed on the Patna High Court's decision in Ram Krishna Mission Ashrama v. State of Bihar and the Kerala High Court's decision in M/s. Penuel Nexus Pvt. Ltd. v. The Additional Commissioner, Headquarters (Appeal) Ernakulam & State Tax Officer, which held that Section 107 implicitly excludes the Limitation Act and fiscal statutes must be strictly construed.