Narendra Kumar Bothra vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Bowbazar Charge And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Narendra Kumar Bothra, filed a writ petition seeking leave to amend or rectify GST returns for the period April 2018 to March 2019. The challenge stemmed from an order passed under Section 73 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, on November 2, 2023, for the Financial Year 2018-19. The petitioner contended that the online portal did not permit filing an appeal after the statutory limitation period had expired, preventing the generation of Form GST APL-01. The respondents objected, citing the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy through appeal under Section 107 of the said Act.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy in the form of an appeal under Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court rejected the petitioner's contention that the online portal's limitations prevented filing an appeal, referencing the Division Bench judgment in S. K. Chakraborty & Sons v. Union of India (2023 SCC Online Cal. 4759). This precedent established that the appellate authority is competent to admit an appeal by condoning delays beyond one month from the prescribed period, as provided under Section 107(4) of the said Act. Consequently, no relief was granted in the present writ petition. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal within two weeks, along with an application for condonation of delay. The appellate authority was directed to consider the delay condonation application and, upon condoning the delay, hear the appeal on merits, having due regard to the S. K. Chakraborty & Sons judgment. The petitioner was also permitted to file the appeal manually if the online process did not permit admission beyond the statutory period.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy available in the form of an appeal under Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, despite the expiry of the statutory limitation period. 2. Whether the appellate authority is competent to condone delays in filing appeals beyond the prescribed period, as per Section 107(4) of the said Act. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the online portal's inability to accept appeals after the limitation period effectively barred them from pursuing the statutory remedy. They claimed the online process did not allow for the generation of the appeal form post-expiry. Revenue's arguments: The respondents contended that an efficacious alternative remedy in the form of an appeal under Section 107 of the said Act was available and that the petitioner ought to approach the appellate authority first. They disputed the petitioner's claim regarding the online portal's limitations.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 107, Section 107(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The said order is an appealable order.
Mr. Sanyal, learned advocate representing the respondents has taken strong objection and submits that since an efficacious alternative remedy in the form of an appeal under Section 107 of the said Act is available to the petitioner, the petitioner ought to approach the appellate authority at the first instance.
Mr. Choraria, learned advocate representing the petitioner submits that although, the appellate authority is competent to condone the delay and accept the appeal, unfortunately, the online portal is not permitting the petitioner to file an appeal since the statutory period of limitation has already expired. It is submitted that the online process after expiry of the period of limitation does not permit generation of Form GST APL-01. 5. The aforesaid submission is, however, disputed by Mr. Sanyal.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having considered the materials on record I am of the view that the petitioner at the first instance ought to approach the appellate authority since an efficacious alternative remedy in the form of an appeal under Section 107 of the said Act is available.
The contention of the petitioner that the appellate authority does not permit filing of an appeal beyond the prescribed period of limitation also cannot be accepted inasmuch as the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of S. K. 2
Chakraborty & Sons v. Union of India reported in 2023 SCC Online Cal. 4759, has held that the appellate authority is competent to admit an appeal by condoning the delay beyond one month from the prescribed period as provided for under Section 107(4) of the said Act.
Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the view that no relief can be afforded to the petitioner in the present writ petition.
The aforesaid order shall, however, not stand in the way of the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority. If the petitioner files an appeal within a period of two weeks from date along with an application for condonation of delay, appropriately explaining the delay, the appellate authority shall having due regard to the judgment delivered in the case of S. K. Chakraborty & Sons (supra) consider the said application and upon condoning the delay shall hear out the appeal on merits.
It is made clear that if online process does not permit admission of appeal beyond the statutory period of limitation, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file such appeal manually.
With the above observations and directions, the appeal stands disposed of. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if 3
applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.) 4
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.