Bishnu Narayan Aditya, Proprietor Of Jayguru Engineering Works vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Bishnu Narayan Aditya, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 27th March, 2023, passed by the Appellate Authority under the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax (WBGST) Act. The Appellate Authority dismissed the petitioner's appeal solely on the grounds of an inordinate delay of 235 days, without considering the merits of the appeal. The petitioner's application for condonation of delay cited negligence and lapse on the part of his advocate as the reason for the delay. The petitioner claimed he was assured the appeal would be filed but only learned of its dismissal upon his bank account being attached.

Held

The High Court held that while the reason for the delay (negligence of the advocate) was not entirely cogent, sufficient, or proper, it was in the interest of justice to allow the appeal to be heard on merits. The Court set aside the impugned order of the Appellate Authority dated 27th March, 2023. The matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority for hearing the appeal on its merits, subject to the petitioner fulfilling specific conditions. The petitioner was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 1 lakh to the State GST Authority within ten days of the order's communication and to file proof of payment before the Appellate Authority. If these conditions were met, the Appellate Authority was to hear and dispose of the appeal expeditiously, preferably within four months. Default in payment would render the order ineffective.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority was justified in dismissing the petitioner's appeal on the ground of inordinate delay without considering the merits, contrary to principles of natural justice and the provisions of the WBGST Act? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the delay was due to the negligence of his advocate and that he was assured of the appeal's filing. He contended that the Appellate Authority should have considered the explanation for the delay and heard the appeal on its merits, especially given the significant consequences of the dismissal, such as the attachment of his bank account. The petitioner offered to pay a cost of Rs. 1 lakh for the condonation of delay if the appeal was heard on merits. State's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State or Revenue.