Amit Gupta vs. The State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Held

The Court held that given the non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal and the need to reconcile factual issues, it would be prudent to remand the matter back to the Appellate Authority for adjudication on merits. The Court noted the attachment order issued against the petitioner's bank account. To facilitate this, the petitioner was directed to deposit an additional 10% of the remaining disputed tax amount, in addition to the sum already deposited, within three weeks. Upon such deposit, the attachment order dated September 4, 2023, would stand quashed. The Appellate Authority was directed to hear and dispose of the matter on merits expeditiously, preferably within 12 weeks from the date of the additional deposit.

Facts

The petitioner, Amit Gupta, filed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order dated May 18, 2023, passed by the Proper Officer under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, for the tax period April 2021 to March 2022. He also challenged the Appellate Authority's order dated December 28, 2023, which dismissed his appeal on grounds of delay without adjudicating on merits. The petitioner further challenged an order dated September 4, 2023, attaching his bank account. The petitioner contended that he had deposited 20% of the disputed tax amount and that the Appellate Tribunal was not yet constituted, necessitating the writ petition. The revenue disputed the deposit amount, stating only 10% was paid.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal on the ground of delay without adjudicating the merits of the case, particularly when the Appellate Tribunal is not yet constituted? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the Appellate Authority failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits, dismissing it solely on delay. He emphasized that the appeal was accompanied by the required pre-deposit. Given the non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal, the High Court should hear the matter on merits. He claimed 20% of the disputed tax had been deposited. Revenue's arguments: The revenue contended that the petitioner had only deposited 10% of the disputed tax, not 20% as claimed. They suggested that if the Court decided to adjudicate on merits, the matter could be remanded to the appellate authority, subject to the petitioner depositing an additional 10% of the disputed tax.