Madan Mohan Sadhu And Co vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Bureau Of Investagation (South Bengal) And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Madan Mohan Sadhu & Co., filed a writ petition on March 31, 2023, challenging an order dated July 8, 2022, passed under Section 74 of the WBGST Act, 2017. This order was appellable. The writ petition was filed more than eight months after the impugned order. The petitioner annexed a medical certificate indicating orthopedic problems and treatment from July 5, 2022, to October 21, 2022. The writ petition was affirmed on January 10, 2023. The petitioner's advocate submitted that further delay in filing occurred due to the father's illness, amounting to an additional 2.5 months.

Held

The Court acknowledged the petitioner's challenge to the order under Section 74 of the WBGST Act, 2017, and the significant delay in filing the writ petition. It noted that the impugned order was an appellable one. Considering the exceptional circumstances of the petitioner's medical condition and the personal grounds cited by the learned advocate for the delay, the Court decided not to dismiss the writ petition outright. Instead, it granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appropriate authority within ten days from the date of the order. This liberty was conditioned upon the payment of a cost of Rs. 30,000/- to the GST authority and compliance with all other formalities, including the mandatory pre-deposit for filing the appeal. The Court directed that if these conditions were met, the appellate authority should consider the appeal on its merits and dispose of it according to law. The Court explicitly stated that if the petitioner defaulted on any of these conditions, the order would have no force. The Court did not decide the merits of the original challenge to the Section 74 order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition, filed after a significant delay beyond the statutory period for appeal and after the affirmation date, is maintainable before this Court, considering the existence of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the writ petition was due to exceptional circumstances, specifically the petitioner's own medical condition and subsequently his father's illness, which prevented timely filing. Revenue's contention: The State, represented by the Deputy Commissioner and others, contended that the impugned order was appellable under Section 74 of the WBGST Act, 2017, and the writ petition was filed with an inordinate delay, making it not maintainable. The State did not explicitly argue against the medical grounds presented but focused on the delay and the availability of the appellate remedy.