R.J. Industries And Anr. vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Strand Road Charge And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, R. J. Industries & Anr., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated May 30, 2024, passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Central/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The appeal was rejected as barred by limitation. The original order under Section 73(9) of the Act was passed on November 24, 2023, for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018. The petitioners had filed an appeal and made a pre-deposit of Rs. 1,22,494/- as required by Section 107(6). They also filed an application on April 16, 2024, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, citing reasons such as lack of proper knowledge of the GST portal. The delay was approximately 22 days. The petitioners contended that the appellate authority's rejection was perverse.
Held
The Court held that the appellate authority had failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by rejecting the appeal solely on the ground of limitation without appropriately considering the petitioner's application for condonation of delay. The Court noted that the appellate authority's observation that delay could only be condoned if filed within one month beyond the prescribed period was contrary to the observations made by a Division Bench of the same Court in S. K. Chakraborty & Sons v. Union of India & Ors. (2023 SCC Online Cal 4759). The Court found no lack of bona fide on the part of the petitioner, considering they had made the required pre-deposit and were a small partnership firm. The ratio decidendi is that appellate authorities must judiciously consider applications for condonation of delay, especially when there is a reasonable explanation and no mala fide intent, and that a restrictive interpretation of condonable delay periods, contrary to High Court pronouncements, amounts to a failure to exercise jurisdiction. The Court condoned the delay of 22 days and directed the appellate authority to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits within eight weeks.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appellate authority erred in rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation without appropriately considering the application for condonation of delay, contrary to established legal principles? (Section 107(1) and Section 107(6) of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017). The petitioner argued that the appellate authority failed to exercise its jurisdiction by not properly considering the grounds for condonation of delay, particularly given the petitioner's bona fide intent and the relatively short delay. They relied on the principle that a short delay, especially with a reasonable explanation and bona fide intent, should be condoned. The State-respondents, represented by Mr. Siddiqui, did not record any specific arguments against the condonation of delay in the judgment.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 73(9), Section 107, Section 107(1), Section 107(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
13 SM
2025. WPA 15210 of 2024
R. J. Industries & Anr. Vs Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Strand Road Charge & Ors.
Mr. Anil Kumar Dugar Mr. Rajarshi Chatterjee … for the petitioners Mr. A. Roy Md. T. M. Siddiqui Mr. N. Chatterjee Mr. T. Chakraborty … for the state
The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the order dated 30th May, 2024, passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Central/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), whereby the petitioner’s appeal had been rejected on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. The facts are not in dispute. In connection with a proceeding initiated under Section 73 of the said Act, for the tax period July, 2017 to March, 2018 an order under Section 73(9) of the said Act was passed on 24th November, 2023. Although, the petitioner had preferred an appeal from the aforesaid order and simultaneously, with the filing of the appeal, had also made pre-deposit of Rs.1,22,494/- as is required for maintaining the appeal under the provisions of Section 107(6) of the said Act, there had been delay in
2 filing of the appeal. In such circumstance, the petitioner had also filed an application on 16th April, 2024 explaining the delay in preferring the appeal. According to the petitioner, the appellate authority without appropriately taking note of the grounds for condonation of delay had rejected the appeal, inter alia, on the ground that appellate authority is competent only to condone the delay provided the appeal is filed within the period of one month beyond the time prescribed. He submits that the aforesaid order is perverse. In the facts of this case this Court may be pleased to restore the appeal by condoning the delay. Mr. Siddiqui, learned advocate enters appearance on behalf of the State-respondents. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. Admittedly, in this case the petitioner had filed an appeal challenging the order passed under Section 73(9) of the said Act. Simultaneously, with the filing of the appeal, the petitioner had also made pre-deposit of Rs.1,22,494/- as is required for maintaining the appeal. As such there is no lack of bona fide on the part of the petitioner in preferring the appeal. It appears that the petitioner had also made a prayer for condonation of delay, inter alia, claiming that by reasons of lack of
3 proper knowledge of the GST portal there had been delay in filing the appeal. There appears to be a delay of 22 days in filing the appeal. Taking into consideration that the petitioner is a small partnership firm and there is no lack of bona fide on the part of the petitioner and one does not stand to gain by filing a belated appeal, I am of the view that in the instant case, the appellate authority ought to have appropriately considered the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner. The appellate authority, however, appears to have rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation by, inter alia, holding that the delay can only be condoned provided the same is filed within the period of one month of the time prescribed. The aforesaid observation made by the appellate authority runs counter to the observation made by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of S. K. Chakraborty & Sons v. union of India & Ors., reported in 2023 SCC Online Cal 4759. The aforesaid would demonstrate that the appellate authority had failed to exercise the juri iction vested in it. Having regard to the above and taking note of the explanation given by the petitioner while setting aside the order dated 30th May, 2024, I condone the delay in preferring the appeal.
4 Accordingly, I direct the appellate authority to hear and dispose of the appeal, on merit, upon giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. All parties shall act in terms of the copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, 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.