Bidyut Das vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

WPA/15583/2024HC CalcuttaGSTCNR WBCHCA029453202407 August 2024Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, Bidyut Das, challenged an order passed by the appellate authority on May 3, 2024, which rejected his appeal against an order under Section 73 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017. The original order pertained to the tax period July 2017 to March 2018. The appeal was rejected solely on the grounds of being barred by limitation. The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the sudden demise of his son in November 2021, which significantly impacted his ability to manage business affairs. The petitioner had also deposited the pre-requisite amount of Rs. 6,09,156/- for maintaining the appeal.

Held

The Court held that the appellate authority had acted mechanically in rejecting the appeal solely on the ground of limitation, without properly considering the explanation provided by the petitioner for the delay. The Court found the petitioner's explanation, attributing the delay to the sudden demise of his son in November 2021 and the subsequent inability to attend to business affairs, to be sufficient. The Court noted that the petitioner had also complied with the pre-deposit requirement, demonstrating bona fide. Consequently, the order of the appellate authority dated May 3, 2024, was set aside. The appeal was restored to its original file and number, and the appellate authority was directed to hear and dispose of the appeal on its merits expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks from the date of communication of the order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority acted mechanically in rejecting the petitioner's appeal as barred by limitation, without considering the explanation for the delay, thereby violating principles of natural justice, as contemplated under Section 107 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The appellate authority failed to consider the petitioner's explanation for the delay, which was due to the personal tragedy of his son's demise. This failure resulted in a mechanical rejection of the appeal. The petitioner also highlighted that the appeal was accompanied by the required pre-deposit, indicating bona fide intent. State's contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the State respondents regarding the appellate authority's decision or the petitioner's explanation for the delay.

Sections Cited

Section 73, Section 107

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

M/L 72 07.08.2024 sb Ct 5 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA 15583 of 2024 Bidyut Das Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Ms. Sweta Mukherjee Ms. Tanima Nandy … For the petitioner. Mr. Anirban Ray, Ld. GP Mr. T. M. Siddiqui Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty Ms. S. Shaw Mr. Saptak Sanyal … For the State 1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record. 2. Challenging the order passed under Section 73 of the CGST/WBGST Act 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) dated 19th May, 2023, for the tax period July, 2017 to March, 2018, an appeal had been filed before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the said Act. The same was, admittedly, barred by limitation. 3. Although, the petitioner claims to have appropriately explained the delay in filing the appeal, the appellate authority, by its order dated 3rd May, 2024, was pleased to reject the said appeal as being barred by limitation. 2 4. Ms. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner would, however, submit that the appellate authority had acted mechanically in passing the order impugned as the appellate authority had failed to take note of the circumstances under which there had been delay in preferring the appeal. 5. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate enters appearance on behalf of the State respondents. 6. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. 7. It appear that the appeal filed by the petitioner was duly accompanied with the amount of pre-deposit of Rs.6,09,156/- as is required for maintaining the appeal. Having regard to the aforesaid, it cannot be said that there is lack of bona fide on the part of the petitioner in preferring the appeal. 8. It also appears from the document on record that the petitioner had specifically averred in the application that due to sudden demise of his only son, in November, 2021, who was 20 years old, the petitioner could not look after regular affairs of the business which resulted in delay in preferring the appeal. The appellate authority, has, however, completely ignored 3 the same and has proceeded to dismiss the appeal by passing the order dated 3rd May, 2024, which at best,

can be said to be a mechanical order.

In view thereof, the order passed by the appellate authority dated 3rd May, 2024 is set aside.

10.

The explanation given by the petitioner is found to be sufficient. The appeal is restored to its original file and number.

11.

The appellate authority is directed to hear out and dispose of the appeal on merits, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 8 weeks from date of communication of this order.

12.

With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of requisite 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.