Kamdhenus Sweets Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Baruipur Charge And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Kamdhenus Sweets Private Limited, challenged an order passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the said Act, along with the required pre-deposit. However, the Appellate Authority, by an order dated April 30, 2024, dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of limitation, without considering the petitioner's application for condonation of delay. The petitioner contended that the dismissal was mechanical and prayed for the matter to be remanded for re-adjudication on merits.
Held
The Court held that while the petitioner's explanation for the delay in filing the appeal was not satisfactory, the manner in which the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation was unacceptable. The Court found that there was no consideration of the petitioner's application for condonation of delay. For the ends of justice, the Court decided that the petitioner should be allowed to present their case on merits before the Appellate Authority. This was made conditional upon the petitioner paying Rs. 10,000/- within two weeks, with fifty percent to the State Legal Services Authority, West Bengal, and fifty percent to the respondent authorities. Upon production of the payment receipt, the Appellate Authority is directed to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits within eight weeks. Consequently, the order of the Appellate Authority dated April 30, 2024, was set aside.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation without considering the application for condonation of delay, as contemplated under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that the Appellate Authority acted mechanically by dismissing the appeal on limitation without adjudicating the application for condonation of delay. They contended that for the ends of justice, the appeal should be heard on merits. The petitioner sought a remand of the matter for re-adjudication. The respondents, represented by the learned Additional Government Pleader, did not explicitly argue on the merits of the delay or the appeal itself, but rather appeared and were heard. The judgment notes that the petitioner's explanation for the delay was not satisfactory.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
12th August, 2024 (AK) 90 …for the petitioner.
Mr. Anirban Ray Md. T.M. Siddiqui Ms. S. Shaw Mr. N. Chatterjee …for the State.
Leave is granted to the petitioner to correct the particulars in the cause title insofar as the respondent no.3 is concerned.
Challenging, inter alia, an order passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’) dated 4th August, 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 as is required for maintaining the appeal.
The Appellate Authority, however, by its order dated 30th April, 2024 had dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation.
2
The petitioner insists that without considering the application for condonation of delay, the appeal was dismissed in a mechanical manner. The petitioner prays for remand of the matter for re-adjudication on merits.
Mr. Siddiqui, learned Additional Government Pleader enters appearance on behalf of the respondents.
Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and have considered the materials on record. Although, I find the explanation given by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the belated appeal to be not satisfactory, but the manner in which the Appellate Authority had purported to reject the appeal on the ground of limitation cannot be accepted.
There appears to be no consideration of the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay.
Be that as it may, for ends of justice, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to present his case on merits before the Appellate Authority, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/-, fifty per cent whereof to be paid to the State Legal Services Authority, West Bengal and fifty percent to the respondent authorities.
Subject to payment of the aforesaid amount within two weeks from date and on production of receipt of
3 payment, the Appellate Authority shall hear out and dispose of the said appeal on merits within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing of the receipt with the Appellate Authority
As a sequel thereto, the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 30th April, 2024 is set aside.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the necessary formalities.
(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.