Big Bull Trader PVT. LTD. vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Howrah And Kadamtala Charge And Ors.
Held
The Court held that the appellate authority had dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay without considering the application for condonation of delay. It was noted that the Appellate Tribunal was not yet constituted, and there had been no adjudication on merits by the appellate authority. Given that the entire tax amount had already been recovered from the petitioner, the Court found it prudent to remand the matter back to the appellate authority. The appellate authority was directed to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits expeditiously, preferably within six weeks from the communication of the order. The petitioner was also exempted from any further pre-deposit as the tax had already been recovered.
Facts
The petitioner, Big Bull Trader Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated February 27, 2024, passed under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. This order pertained to the tax period July 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner had previously filed an appeal against an order dated May 3, 2023, passed under Section 73 of the Act. However, this appeal was filed with a delay of 53 days, and an application for condonation of delay was also submitted. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay, without considering the condonation application. The petitioner argued that the entire tax component had already been recovered prior to the appeal filing.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appellate authority erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay without considering the application for condonation of delay, as contemplated under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the appellate authority mechanically rejected the application for condonation of delay without proper consideration. They further contended that since the Appellate Tribunal is yet to be constituted, the High Court should decide the matter on merits, especially as the entire tax component had already been recovered from the petitioner before the appeal was filed. Revenue/State's contention: The State respondents, through their counsel, acknowledged that the entire tax component had been recovered and that reconciliation was required.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
M/L 199 01.10.2024 sb Ct 5
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE
WPA 19509 of 2024
Big Bull Trader Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Howrah & Kadamtala Charge & Ors.
Mr. Sandip Choraria
Mr. Rishav Manna
… For the petitioner.
Mr. Anirban Ray, Ld. GP
Mr. T. M. Siddiqui
Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty
Mr. Saptak Sanyal
… For the State.
Challenging the appellate order dated 27th February, 2024, passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) for the tax period July, 2017 to March, 2018, the instant writ petition has been filed.
Mr. Choraria, learned advocate appearing in support of the writ petition would submit that being aggrieved by an order dated 3rd May, 2023 passed under Section 73 of the said Act, an appeal was filed before the appellate authority. According to him, there had be
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.