Steel Se Engineering Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Kadamtala Charge,And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Steel Se Engineering Private Limited, challenged an order in original dated March 31, 2022, passed under the WBGST Act by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Kadamtala Charge. The petitioner also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(a) of the CGST/WBGST Act, but this issue was not pressed. The primary challenge was to the order in original. The petitioner approached the High Court with a writ petition approximately fifteen months after the expiry of the limitation period for filing an appeal. The delay was attributed to the death of the petitioner's advocate, Kishore Majumdar, who was entrusted with filing the appeal. The advocate passed away on March 17, 2023.

Held

The Court declined to interfere with the impugned order in original directly through the writ petition for two primary reasons. Firstly, the impugned order dated March 31, 2022, is an appellable order under the statute, meaning a statutory appeal is the appropriate recourse. Secondly, there was an inordinate delay of fifteen months in approaching the High Court after the limitation period for filing an appeal had expired. However, in the interest of justice and considering the petitioner's voluntary agreement to pay a cost of Rs. One lakh, the Court granted leave to the petitioner to file an appeal against the order in original. This was made conditional upon the petitioner fulfilling all legal formalities for filing the appeal and paying the cost of Rs. One lakh to the WBGST authority within ten days. The appeal, along with proof of cost payment, was to be filed within a week of such payment. The appellate authority was directed to consider and dispose of the appeal on its merits without raising the point of limitation. Furthermore, upon compliance with these conditions, the garnishee order and attachment of the bank account were to remain stayed until the disposal of the appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an order in original when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available under the WBGST Act? 2. Whether the inordinate delay of fifteen months in filing an appeal against the order in original should be condoned, considering the reasons presented by the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the delay was due to the unfortunate demise of their advocate, who was responsible for filing the appeal. They expressed willingness to pay a cost of Rs. One lakh if the delay was condoned. The petitioner also stated that they were under the impression that the appeal had already been filed. The State, represented by the learned Government Pleader, did not explicitly argue against condoning the delay or entertaining the writ petition, but the Court noted the existence of an appellable order and the delay.