Delta Goods PVT. LTD. And Anr vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The appellants, Delta Goods Private Limited & Anr., filed an intra-Court appeal against an order dated 21st August, 2024, which upheld the dismissal of their appeal by the appellate authority. The appellate authority had dismissed the appellants' appeal on 13th March, 2024, as it was time-barred, having been filed beyond the condonable period of four months. The original adjudication order under Section 73 of the W.B.G.S.T. Act was passed by the Joint Commissioner of Revenue, 24 Parganas Circle, on 17th April, 2023. The appellants contended that they had imported goods from Nepal, paid customs duty, and possessed all relevant documents, thus no GST was payable. They had pre-deposited Rs. 1,48,895/-, representing 10% of the disputed tax, for the period July 1, 2017, to March 31, 2018.
Held
The Court held that while the appellate authority and the learned Single Bench were correct in their assessment of the appeal being time-barred and the writ petition being unsustainable on that ground, the peculiar facts and circumstances warranted granting one more opportunity to the appellants. The Court noted that the appellants had pre-deposited 10% of the disputed tax and possessed customs documents supporting their claim that no GST was payable on the imported goods. The tax period, July 1, 2017, to March 31, 2018, was also considered significant as it was the initial phase of the GST regime. Consequently, the Court set aside the order of the learned Single Bench, the appellate authority's order, and the adjudication order. The matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration. The appellants were directed to submit their reply to the show-cause notice with all documents within six weeks, after which the adjudicating authority would provide a personal hearing and pass a fresh order on merits. The Court explicitly stated that it had not gone into the merits of the case.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appellate authority was justified in dismissing the appellants' appeal as time-barred, considering the delay beyond the condonable period of four months, and consequently, whether the learned Single Bench was correct in not entertaining the writ petition challenging this dismissal? The appellants argued that while they acknowledge the delay and their lack of diligence in responding to the show-cause notice and filing the appeal, the core issue of their liability for GST was never adjudicated on merits. They claimed no tax was payable as the transaction involved imported goods from Nepal on which customs duty had been paid, and they possessed supporting documents. The Revenue/State argued that the appellate authority correctly dismissed the appeal due to the delay, as it had no power to condone delays beyond the statutory limit, and the learned Single Bench was justified in upholding this decision.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, C.J.)
This intra-Court appeal by the unsuccessful writ petitioners is directed against the order dated 21st August, 2024 in W.P.A. No.15504 of 2024. The appellants had filed the writ petition challenging the order passed by the appellate authority dated 13th March, 2024 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants as it was time-barred.
The appellants cannot fault the appellate authority’s order since the appeal was filed much beyond the condonable period. Therefore, the appellate authority was right in rejecting the appeal on the ground of it being barred by 2 limitation as he had no power to condone the delay beyond the period of four months (3+1). Thus, the learned Single Bench was justified in not entertaining the writ petition.
However, after elaborately hearing the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the facts of the case, it is seen that the appellants did not respond to the show-cause notice issued by the adjudicating authority viz. the Joint Commissioner of Revenue, 24 Parganas Circle as could be seen from the order passed under Section 73 of the W.B.G.S.T. Act (for brevity, “the Act”) dated 17th April, 2023. 4. The appellants’ contention is that no tax is payable since the appellants had imported goods from Nepal and the requisite customs duty has been paid and the appellants are in possession of all documents. Thus, right through the entire proceedings, the appellants’ case was never adjudicated and the appellants are to be blamed for such a situation as they did not respond to the show-cause notice by submitting reply, nor produced any documents before the adjudicating authority and were not diligent in filing the appeal within the statutory period of limitation. However, taking note of the fact that the appellants are in possession of certain customs documents and that their contention is that no tax is payable since it was an import transaction on which customs duty has been remitted and also taking into consideration that the appellants have pre-deposited a sum of Rs.1,48,895/- at the time of preferring the appeal, being 10% of the disputed tax and also taking note of the fact that the tax period is from July 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018 i.e. when the GST regime was introduced, this Court is of the view that one more opportunity can be granted to the appellants.
3
It is made clear that this order has been passed without going into the merits of the matter and taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and also the relevant tax period.
For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed. The order passed in the writ petition is set aside and the writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the appellate authority and adjudication order passed under Section 73 of the Act dated 17th April, 2023 are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration.
The appellants are directed to submit their reply to the show-cause notice enclosing all documents in their possession within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of server copy of this judgment and order after which the adjudicating authority shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the authorized representative of the appellants and pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law.
It is reiterated that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter and all grounds available to the appellants can be canvassed before the adjudicating authority, which shall take decision on merits.
No costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal formalities. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE I agree. (BIVAS PATTANAYAK, J.) Pallab/Krishnendu AR(Ct.)
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.