Rajesh Agarwal vs. Deputy Commmissioner Of Revenue, State Tax, Taltala And New Market Charge And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Rajesh Agarwal, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated February 29, 2024, passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017. This order rejected the petitioner's appeal against an order dated September 15, 2023, passed under Section 73 of the said Act for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner had filed the appeal belatedly and simultaneously submitted an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, citing illness between January 14, 2024, and February 2, 2024, supported by medical records. The Appellate Authority, however, rejected the appeal solely on the grounds of being filed beyond the prescribed period, without adequately considering the delay condonation application.
Held
The Court held that the Appellate Authority erred in rejecting the appeal without appropriately considering the application for condonation of delay. The Court found that the petitioner had made a pre-deposit as required and had filed an application for condonation of delay with supporting medical records, demonstrating bona fides. The Appellate Authority's action of dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation, by glossing over the delay condonation application, was found to be contrary to the law laid down by the Division Bench of the High Court in the cases of S.K. Chakraborty & Sons v. Union of India & Ors. and Mukul Islam v. The Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax, Cooch Behar Range & Ors. Consequently, the order of the Appellate Authority dated February 29, 2024, was set aside. The delay was condoned, and the appeal was remanded back to the Appellate Authority for adjudication on merits within eight weeks from the date of communication of the order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in law by rejecting the appeal on the grounds of limitation without properly considering the application for condonation of delay, particularly when the petitioner provided medical records to explain the delay? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Section 107 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017 and Section 5 of the Limitation Act). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the Appellate Authority ignored the application for condonation of delay and the medical records submitted to explain the petitioner's illness, which prevented timely filing. The petitioner argued that the Appellate Authority should have considered the delay condonation application and, if allowed, adjudicated the appeal on merits. The petitioner sought to set aside the Appellate Authority's order and remand the case for fresh adjudication. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments made by the respondents (State).
Sections Cited
Section 107, Section 73, Section 5
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2024 Sl. No. 121. M/L. Taltala & New Market Charge & Ors.
Mr. Piyal Gupta, Mr. M.S. Alam
..for the petitioner. Mr. Anirban Ray, Ld. G.P., Mr. T.M. Siddique, Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty, Mr. Saptak Sanyal Mr. Debraj Sahu …for the State.
The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the order dated 29th February, 2024 passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST/WBGST Act , 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”).
Records would reveal that challenging the determination made under Section 73 of the said Act by order dated 15th September, 2023 for the tax period July, 2017 to March, 2018 an appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the said Act. Simultaneously with the filing of the appeal, the petitioner had also made a pre-deposit of Rs.49,783/- as is required for maintaining the appeal. Since the appeal was filed belatedly, the petitioner had
2 also simultaneously with the filing of the appeal filed an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Mr.Rajesh Agarwal, learned Advocate representing the petitioner submits that since the petitioner was unwell and under the treatment on and from 14th January, 2024 to 2nd February, 2024, appropriate steps could not be taken for filing the appeal in time. The medical records of the petitioner had also been disclosed. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the appellate authority by ignoring the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act had purportedly rejected the said appeal on the ground that the same was filed beyond one month of the prescribed period. He submits that in the facts of the case, this Court may be pleased to set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority and remand it back for adjudication on merits.
Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate enters appearance on behalf of the respondents.
Heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering the materials on record, I find that in this case, being aggrieved by the order passed under Section 73 of the said Act dated 15th September, 2023, the petitioner
3 had filed an appeal. Simultaneously with the filing of the appeal, the petitioner had deposited the pre- deposit as is required for maintaining the appeal and, as such, the bona fide of the petitioner cannot be doubted. Since there was some delay in filing the appeal, the petitioner had filed an application for condonation of delay. The appellate authority, however, by glossing over the same had rejected the said appeal. Taking note of the averments made in the application for condonation of delay, I am of the view that the appellate authority ought to have appropriately considered the application for condonation of delay. The Appellate Authority by proceeding to dismiss the appeal by treating the same barred by limitation as having been filed beyond one month after the prescribed period had in fact, acted contrary to the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.K.Chakraborty & Sons v. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2024(123) GST 229 as also the judgment delivered in the case of Mukul Islam v. The Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax, Cooch Behar Range & Ors., reported in [2024] 162 taxmann.com 552 (Calcutta).
Having regard to the above, I am of the view that the order passed by the Appellate Authority on
4 29th February, 2024 cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. Since the petitioner has been able to sufficiently explain the delay, while condoning the delay, I remand the appeal back to the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority shall hear out the appeal on merits in accordance with law and dispose of the same within a period of 8 weeks from the date of communication of this order.
With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.