Kamal Krishna Kundu vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the Appellate Authority ought to have considered the appeal on merits, notwithstanding the potential non-strict compliance with the notification dated November 2, 2023. The reasoning was based on the peculiar facts of the case and the acknowledgment that substantial recovery may have been made from the petitioner prior to the rejection of the appeal. The Court noted that the appellate tribunal was yet to be constituted. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority for re-adjudication on merits. The Appellate Authority was directed to hear and dispose of the appeal expeditiously, preferably within twelve weeks. The notice issued in Form GST DRC 13 dated September 15, 2022, was quashed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Kamal Krishna Kundu, challenged an order dated January 18, 2024, passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner had filed an appeal by invoking a notification dated November 2, 2023, and paid 12.5% of the tax in dispute, in addition to amounts already recovered by the respondents. However, the appeal was dismissed because the petitioner allegedly did not pay 25% of the disputed amount by debiting their electronic cash ledger. The petitioner argued that since the entire tax in dispute, as reflected in Form DRC 07 dated June 21, 2021, had been realized, the Appellate Authority should not have insisted on further payment. An attachment order (DRC 13 dated September 15, 2022) had also been issued. The State acknowledged that recoveries were made but the exact quantum was not readily available and that these recoveries, along with any voluntary deposits, needed reconciliation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal on the grounds of non-compliance with the notification dated November 2, 2023, despite substantial recovery of the disputed tax amount. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that since the entire tax in dispute, as per Form DRC 07 dated June 21, 2021, had been realized, no further payment should have been insisted upon by the Appellate Authority. They argued that the recovery made, including payments, had not been accounted for, and the appeal was dismissed without a decision on merits. State's arguments: The State acknowledged that recoveries had been made, though the exact quantum was not readily available. They conceded that the recoveries and any voluntary deposits required reconciliation and were not reflected in the appellate order.