Surekha Shah vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Revenue, State Tax, College Street And Sealdah Charge And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the matter required scrutiny of records and decision on factual issues, and that adjudicating the writ petition on merits would necessitate this. Considering the marginal delay in filing the appeal and the fact that the appellate tribunal was yet to be constituted, the Court deemed it prudent to remand the matter back to the Appellate Authority for a decision on merits. The order passed by the Appellate Authority on May 9, 2024, was set aside. The Appellate Authority was directed to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within twelve weeks from the date of communication of the order. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the original order passed under Section 73.

Facts

The petitioner, Surekha Shah, challenged an order dated November 30, 2023, passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018. An appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Act, with the required pre-deposit. The appeal was belatedly filed by sixteen days, and the petitioner provided an explanation for the delay. The Appellate Authority, by an order dated May 9, 2024, rejected the appeal without considering the explanation for the delay. The petitioner approached the High Court via a writ petition, seeking either a hearing on merits or a remand to the Appellate Authority, citing the non-availability of the appellate tribunal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in rejecting the appeal on grounds of delay without considering the explanation provided for the sixteen-day delay, thereby violating principles of natural justice, particularly in light of the non-constitution of the appellate tribunal? (Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal was marginal (sixteen days) and that a proper explanation was provided. They contended that the Appellate Authority erroneously rejected the appeal by ignoring this explanation. Given the absence of the appellate tribunal, the petitioner requested the High Court to either decide the matter on merits or remand it back to the Appellate Authority for a decision on merits. Revenue's Contention: The State-respondents conceded that the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period. They argued that there was no irregularity in the order passed by the Appellate Authority, although they did not dispute the fact that the delay was marginal.