Kamrul Nahar vs. The Union Of INDIA And Ors

Held

The Court held that it was not required to delve into the factual or legal issues raised by the petitioner at that stage, as the petitioner had the liberty to invoke the appellate remedy under Section 107(1) of the Act by the cut-off date of 31.01.2024, as per the notification dated 04.11.2023. Recognizing the petitioner's difficulty in making the pre-deposit due to attached bank accounts, the Court directed the Branch Manager of ICICI Bank, Bishalgarh Branch, to permit the petitioner to remit the required pre-deposit amount from the attached bank accounts. This permission was contingent on the petitioner making an application through the permissible mode for preferring the appeal within the cut-off date. If such an appeal was filed by 31.01.2024, fulfilling the notification's conditions, the appellate authority was directed to consider it expeditiously, preferably within twelve weeks. The Court explicitly stated that no comments were made on the merits of the case. The ratio is that in exceptional circumstances, particularly when a remedial notification is issued, and a party faces practical impediments like attachment of bank accounts, the High Court can facilitate access to the statutory remedy by issuing specific directions, without deciding the substantive issues.

Facts

The petitioner, Kamrul Nahar, filed three writ petitions (WP(C) Nos. 224, 225, and 253 of 2023) challenging show cause notices and adjudication orders issued under Section 73(1) of the Tripura State Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, for different tax periods (April 2020-March 2021, April 2019-March 2020, and April 2021-March 2022). The petitioner approached the High Court after the statutory period for filing appeals under Section 107(1) of the Act had expired. The respondents objected to the maintainability of the writ petitions due to the delay. Subsequently, a notification dated 04.11.2023 was issued, providing a window for filing appeals against orders passed on or before 31.03.2023, even if filed beyond the stipulated time, subject to certain conditions. The petitioner sought to avail this remedy but faced difficulties due to the attachment of his bank accounts.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petitions are maintainable before this Court, given that the petitioner approached the Court after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed under Section 107(4) of the Tripura State Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, as per the ruling in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited? 2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to avail the extended appeal window provided by the notification dated 04.11.2023, despite the delay, and under what conditions, particularly concerning the pre-deposit requirement and the attachment of bank accounts? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that while there are merits and grounds of violation of natural justice, they should be allowed to prefer an appeal within the extended timeline provided by the notification dated 04.11.2023. They highlighted constraints in making the pre-deposit due to attached bank accounts and sought permission to use ICICI bank accounts for this purpose, while reserving the right to raise all grounds before the appellate authority. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued against the maintainability of the writ petition due to the delay. However, they agreed to permit the petitioner to remit the requisite pre-deposit from the ICICI bank accounts for the purpose of availing the appellate remedy.