Vishnu Trading Co vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Vishnu Trading Co., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated May 26, 2025, passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017. This order dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an order dated March 22, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the same Act. The dismissal was based on the appeal being filed belatedly by approximately 311 days. The petitioner attributed the delay to the advanced age of its managing partner (83 years) and the alleged lack of understanding of GST law by their Accountant-cum-Consultant, who provided incorrect advice.
Held
The Court held that for the ends of justice and to ensure the petitioner was not deprived of an avenue to challenge the adjudication order, particularly since the further appellate forum under Section 112 of the WBGST Act, 2017, was not yet functional, the petitioner should be granted one more opportunity to pursue the appeal under Section 107. This was subject to the petitioner depositing Rs. 15,000/- with the State Legal Services Authorities and furnishing proof of payment to the appellate authority. Upon compliance, the appellate authority was directed to proceed with hearing the appeal on its merits, and the impugned order dated May 26, 2025, would cease to have effect. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appellate authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017, on the grounds of delay, considering the explanation provided by the petitioner. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the advanced age of its managing partner and the erroneous advice received from their GST consultant, who lacked sufficient understanding of GST laws. They argued that these circumstances constituted sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Revenue's arguments: The State argued that the explanation provided by the petitioner was not sufficient to condone the significant delay of 311 days in filing the appeal. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the State regarding any particular provision or precedent, but it is implied they supported the appellate authority's decision to dismiss the appeal.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Section 73, Section 112
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
16 11.11. 2025 ---------------
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Mr. Sutirtha Das, Ms. Sanjana Jha. … for the petitioner. Mr. T. Chakraborty, Ms. Sumita Shaw, Mr. Saptak Sanyal. … for the State.
This writ petition takes exception to an order dated May 26, 2025 passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017 whereby the petitioner’s appeal against an order dated March 22, 2024 passed under Section 73 of the said Act of 2017 was dismissed on the ground that the appeal was filed belatedly.
The petitioner approached the appellate forum with a delay of around 311 days. The only explanation given by the petitioner is that the managing partner of the petitioner is aged 83 years and that he had to rely on the Accountant-cum-Consultant for GST related matters. It is further alleged that the Accountant-cum-Consultant lacked understanding about the GST Law and gave wrong advice to the petitioner wherefor the appeal could not be filed within the statutory period of limitation.
The appellate authority has refused to accept the explanation preferred by the petitioner for the delay that the petitioner has occasioned in preferring the appeal.
Having gone through the material on record and
2
having perused the order impugned, this Court is of the view that for ends of justice and to ensure that the petitioner is not deprived of an avenue to challenge the adjudication order (especially since the statutory forum of appeal under Section 112 of the said Act of 2017 against the appellate order under Section 107 of the said Act of 2017 is not yet functional), the petitioner may be given one more opportunity to avail the appellate remedy under Section 107 of the said Act of 2017 subject to payment of costs. If the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs. 15,000/- with the State Legal Services Authorities and furnishes receipt of such payment to the appellate authority under Section 107 of the said Act of 2017, the appellate authority shall proceed to hear the appeal on merits and the order dated May 26, 2025, impugned in the present writ petition, shall then have no effect.
WPA 20587 of 2025 stands disposed of on above terms.
(Om Narayan Rai, J.)
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.