M/S. Mondal Supplier And Ors. vs. Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax, Diamond Harbour Charge And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Mondal Supplier, filed an appeal under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, against an order passed under Section 73 of the Act for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018. The appeal was filed on April 8, 2024, with a pre-deposit of Rs. 7,82,968/-. The appellate authority rejected the appeal by an order dated May 24, 2024, citing it as barred by limitation. The petitioner contended that the delay was due to the illness of a partner and that their explanation, along with supporting documents, was submitted to the appellate authority. However, the appellate authority allegedly dismissed the appeal without considering this explanation.
Held
The Court held that the appellate authority ought to have considered the explanation provided by the petitioners regarding the delay in filing the appeal, especially in light of the judgment in S. K. Chakraborty & Sons v. Union of India & Ors. The Court found that the petitioners had sufficiently explained the delay. Consequently, the Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The order passed by the appellate authority dated May 24, 2024, was set aside. The Court directed the appellate authority to hear and dispose of the appeal on its merits expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks from the date of communication of the order. The issue of the validity of the original order under Section 73 was not decided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appellate authority erred in rejecting the appeal as barred by limitation without considering the petitioner's explanation for the delay, as contemplated under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal was attributable to the illness of a partner, and this explanation, supported by documents, was duly submitted to the appellate authority. They contended that the appellate authority failed to consider this explanation and erroneously dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of limitation. The petitioner relied on the judgment in S. K. Chakraborty & Sons v. Union of India & Ors. The State (revenue) argued that the appeal was admittedly filed beyond the prescribed time, and therefore, the appellate authority was justified in rejecting it as being barred by limitation. No specific provision or precedent was cited by the State in the judgment.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2024 Sl. No. M/L.50 g.b. Court No.05
WPA 15228 of 2024
M/S. Mondal Supplier, a partnership firm & Ors. -Vs- Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Diamond Harbour Charge & Ors. Mr. Rituraj Chakraborty …..For the Petitioners Mr. Anirban Ray Md. T. M. Siddiqui Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty Mr. S. Sanyal Mr. N. Chatterjee ……For the State
Aggrieved by an order passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’) dated 19th September, 2023 for the tax period from July 2017 to March, 2018, the petitioner had preferred an appeal under Section 107 of the said Act. Such appeal was filed on 8th April, 2024 along with pre-deposit of Rs.7,82,968/-. The appellate authority, however, by its order dated 24th May, 2024 rejected the said appeal, inter alia, on the ground that the said appeal was barred by limitation.
Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate for the petitioners by drawing attention of this court to the show cause notice dated 7th May, 2024 would submit that pursuant to the show cause issued by the appellate authority, the petitioners had duly appeared and had submitted appropriate explanation including relevant documents in connection with illness of the petitioner no.1’s partner. According to the petitioners, the petitioner no.1 had been prevented from filing the appeal within the time specified by reasons of illness of the petitioner no.1’s partner. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the appellate authority had purportedly
dismissed the said appeal on the ground of limitation without considering the petitioners’ explanation.
Mr. Siddiqui, learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that admittedly, the appeal is filed beyond the time prescribed. As such there is no irregularity on the part of the appellate authority in rejecting the appeal as the same is barred by limitation.
Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. In this case it would appear, although the appeal was filed beyond the time prescribed, however, explanation had been afforded by the petitioners. The appellate authority appears to have ignored such explanation and proceeded to reject the appeal on the ground of limitation.
I am of the view that the appellate authority ought to have in the given facts taken note of the explanation given by the petitioners, especially in view of the judgement delivered by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of S. K. Chakraborty & Sons v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2024) 123 GSTR 229 : 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 4759. 6. Having considered the explanation given by the petitioners, I find that the petitioners have been able to sufficiently explain the delay in filing the appeal. In view thereof, while condoning the delay for filing the appeal beyond the time prescribed, I direct the appellate authority to hear out and dispose of the appeal on merits as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.
As a sequel thereto, the order passed by the appellate authority dated 24th May, 2024 is set aside. 2
With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties after completion of all necessary formalities. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.) 3
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.