Shri Balaji Udyog vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the appeal was dismissed for failure to make the pre-deposit. The petitioner acknowledged service of notice but contended that due to oversight, they could not take appropriate steps. The Court noted that the order passed by the proper officer could not be tested due to the petitioner's failure to make the pre-deposit, which the petitioner is now willing to pay. Consequently, the Court decided to remand the matter to the appellate authority. This remand is conditional upon the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax amount within three weeks of receiving a server copy of the order. This deposit will be treated as the pre-deposit. If the deposit is made within the stipulated time, the appellate authority is directed to hear and decide the appeal on merits expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks from the date of payment and communication of the order. The writ petition is disposed of with these directions.

Facts

The petitioner, Shri Balaji Udhyog, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated June 26, 2024, passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. This order dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an order dated February 20, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the said Act for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019. The dismissal occurred because the petitioner failed to make the required pre-deposit and overlooked an email regarding the hearing date. The petitioner stated they are ready to pay the pre-deposit and sought a remand to the appellate authority, noting the Appellate Tribunal under the Act is yet to be constituted.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal before the appellate authority should be dismissed solely on the ground of failure to make the pre-deposit and oversight of the hearing notice, especially when the petitioner expresses willingness to pay the pre-deposit and the Appellate Tribunal is not yet constituted? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that due to an oversight regarding the hearing date and failure to make the pre-deposit, they could not take appropriate steps in the appeal. They are ready to pay the pre-deposit and requested the Court to remand the matter to the appellate authority. They also highlighted that the absence of the Appellate Tribunal compelled them to approach the High Court. Revenue's arguments: The State respondents were represented, but their specific arguments are not recorded in the judgment.