Kolis Foods Private Limited And Anr vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Revenue, State Tax, GST, Behala Charge And Ors.

Held

The High Court held that the order passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, dated May 20, 2024, was unsustainable and perverse. The Court's reasoning was based on the observation that the Appellate Authority had proceeded to reject the appeal by recording that there was no representation by the petitioners, despite the petitioners having made a representation. This action amounted to ignoring the petitioners' representation. Consequently, the order was set aside. The appeal 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 from the date of communication of the order, necessitated by the appellate tribunal yet to be constituted. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioners, Kolis Foods Private Limited and another, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated May 20, 2024, passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioners contended that although they were represented before the Appellate Authority and presented their case, the Appellate Authority dismissed their appeal, citing non-representation. The respondents, represented by the learned Additional Government Pleader, acknowledged potential technical errors in the order and conceded that the matter warranted fresh consideration. The High Court noted that the Appellate Authority had proceeded to reject the appeal based on a recording of no representation, despite the petitioners having made a representation, thus ignoring it.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated May 20, 2024, passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, is sustainable and valid, considering the petitioners' contention that they were represented and their arguments were ignored, while the Appellate Authority recorded non-representation. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners argued that the Appellate Authority passed a cryptic order without considering their contentions, wrongly observing that they remained unrepresented, thereby rejecting their appeal. Revenue's Argument: The respondents conceded that there appeared to be certain technical errors in the order and submitted that the matter required a fresh consideration.