Pradeep Kumar Shaw vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax And Ors.
Held
The Court held that it was not inclined to entertain the writ petition due to the inordinate delay of approximately one year and nine months in filing the same. The Court noted that no cogent explanation was provided by the petitioner for this delay. Furthermore, the Court acknowledged that the appeal before the appellate authority was dismissed for non-compliance with statutory formalities, specifically the non-payment of the pre-deposit. The Court's reasoning was that entertaining such a delayed petition without justification would undermine the statutory process and the requirement of timely compliance. The ratio decidendi is that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and will not be exercised to grant relief in cases of unexplained inordinate delay and non-compliance with statutory conditions precedent. The writ petition was dismissed.
Facts
The petitioner, Sri Pradeep Kumar Shaw, proprietor of M/s. Manish Steel, filed a writ petition on August 2, 2023, challenging an order dated November 24, 2021, passed by the appellate authority under the WB GST Act. The appeal before the appellate authority was dismissed due to the petitioner's failure to deposit 10% of the disputed amount, which is a mandatory pre-deposit for filing a statutory appeal. The petitioner filed the writ petition after a delay of approximately one year and nine months from the date of the appellate authority's order, without providing any cogent explanation for the delay.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ court, in its constitutional writ jurisdiction, should entertain a writ petition filed after an inordinate delay of approximately one year and nine months, without any cogent explanation for such delay, challenging an order that was dismissed for non-compliance with statutory formalities? The petitioner argued that the writ court should grant relief despite the delay, implying a challenge to the dismissal order on merits or procedural grounds. The revenue (CGST authorities and the State) contended that the writ petition should be dismissed due to the petitioner's failure to provide any explanation for the significant delay and the admitted non-compliance with the statutory requirement of pre-deposit for the appeal.
Sections Cited
WBGST Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
WPA 18595 OF 2023
2023 Sri Pradeep Kumar Shaw, the Proprietor of M/s. Manish Steel Sl no. 14
- Vs – Ct no. 2
The Deputy Commissioner of State
Tax, Salkia & Bally Charge & Ors. P.M.
Mr. Shobhantanu Bhattacharyya
… for the petitioner
Mr. Tapan Bhanja
… for CGST authorities.
Mr. Anirban Ray, Ld. Govt. Pleader Md. T. M. Siddiqui, Mr. T. Chakraborty, Mr. S. Sanyal
… for the State
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of the appellate authority under WBGST Act dated 24th November, 2021 by filing this writ petition on 2nd August, 2023 that is almost after the lapse of one year nine months. The said appeal was dismissed on the ground of non-payment of pre- deposit of 10% of the disputed amount which is a condition precedent for filing statutory appeal.
This writ Court in exercise of constitutional writ jurisdiction is not inclined to entertain this writ petition and grant any relief for such inordinate delay in filing the writ petition without any cogent
2 exp
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.