Sushma Mittal vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Central Tax, Bally-1, CGST And Cx Division
Held
The Court held that while an alternative statutory remedy of appeal was available and the time limit had expired, the exceptional circumstances presented by the petitioner, namely her serious medical condition and subsequent dementia, warranted condonation of the delay. The Court granted leave to the petitioner to file her appeal within two weeks from the date of the order. This was subject to the condition that she pay a cost of Rs. 25,000/- to the statutory authority and file proof of payment. The appellate authority was directed to consider the appeal on its merits without raising the issue of limitation, provided the conditions were met. The Court clarified that this order condoning the delay was passed due to the exceptional circumstances. The respondent authority was to inform the petitioner about the mode of payment of costs within three days.
Facts
The petitioner, Sushma Mittal, filed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order dated July 19, 2022, passed by the CGST authority. This order was appealable under the statute, and the time limit for filing the appeal had expired. The petitioner explained the delay in approaching the High Court by stating she suffered from a serious illness, colitis, requiring two surgeries, followed by dementia. Medical documents supporting her condition were annexed to the petition. The respondent was the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Bally-1, CGST & CX Division, Howrah Commissionerate.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available, and the time limit for filing such appeal has expired? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that due to severe medical conditions (colitis requiring surgery and subsequent dementia), she was unable to file the statutory appeal within the prescribed time. She presented medical documents to substantiate her claims and sought condonation of delay. Revenue's Argument: The respondent authorities were represented, but the judgment does not record any specific arguments made by them regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or the delay in filing the appeal. The court considered the submissions of both parties.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2023 Tax, Bally-1, CGST & CX Division, Howrah Commissionerate & Ors. Mr. Anil Kr. Dugar. … For the Petitioner. Mr. Kaushik Dey, Mr. Abhradip Maity, Ms. Satabdi Sen. …….for the respondent. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned adjudication order dated 19th July, 2022 passed by the CGST authority concerned which is an appellable order under the statute and the time to file has been expired long back. Explanation for such delay in approaching this writ court made by the petitioner is that she was suffering from serious disease of colitis and it had to undergo two surgeries and medical documents in this regard has been annexed to this writ petition and petitioner further submits that after the recovery from surgery, she suffered from dementia.
2 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the parties and in view of the availability of alternative remedy by way of statutory appeal and t
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.