Made Easy Education Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Baruipur Charge And Ors.

Held

The Court held that it would be prudent to remand the matter to the appellate authority under Section 107 of the said Act. The reasoning was based on the fact that a determination on merits would involve detailed scrutiny of records and determination of factual issues, and importantly, the Appellate Tribunal was yet to be constituted. The Court directed the petitioner to make payment of 20 per cent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute as additional pre-deposit and a cost of Rs. 25,000/- to the Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee. Upon compliance with these conditions within 10 working days, the appellate authority was directed to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits expeditiously, preferably within 12 weeks from the date of payment and production of the receipt. The issue of whether the appeal should have been heard on merits despite the delay was implicitly addressed by the direction to remand, acknowledging the peculiar facts and the unavailability of the Appellate Tribunal.

Facts

The petitioner, Made Easy Education Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 107 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017. This order rejected their appeal filed under Section 107 due to a delay in filing. The original order being appealed was passed under Section 73 of the said Act for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner argued that they were rendered remediless as the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the said Act was yet to be constituted. They sought a hearing on merits or a remand to the appellate authority. The State respondents were represented by the learned Additional Government Pleader.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an order under Section 107 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017, when the appeal was rejected on grounds of delay, especially given the non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that they have been rendered remediless due to the non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal. They urged the Court to either hear the matter on its merits or remand it back to the appellate authority. They relied on the principle that justice should not be denied due to procedural technicalities when a substantive remedy is unavailable. Revenue's arguments: The State respondents, represented by the learned Additional Government Pleader, did not explicitly record any arguments against the petitioner's plea for remand or hearing on merits. The judgment notes that the Court considered the materials on record and the submissions of both parties.