Pioneer Fabricator PVT LTD vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Pioneer Fabricator Private Limited, challenged an order of attachment of its bank account dated November 16, 2022. This attachment arose from an adjudication order dated June 21, 2022, passed under Section 74(1) of the WBGST Act, 2017. The petitioner sought to file a statutory appeal against the adjudication order but found the time limit had expired. The delay was attributed to the death of the company's Managing Director on May 4, 2022, and the subsequent lack of familiarity with the company's affairs by his son, who was managing the liquidation proceedings. The petitioner argued the delay was not deliberate but due to unavoidable circumstances.

Held

The Court, considering the exceptional facts and circumstances, including the death of the Managing Director and the liquidation proceedings, granted the petitioner liberty to file a statutory appeal before the appellate authority within two weeks from the date of the order. This was subject to the petitioner paying a cost of Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent GST authority. The appellate authority was directed to consider the appeal on its merits without insisting on the issue of limitation, provided the appeal was filed within the stipulated time and the cost was paid. The Court also ordered that the impugned order of attachment of the bank account would remain stayed if the petitioner complied with these conditions. The ratio decidendi is that in exceptional circumstances, courts may grant relief to allow a party to pursue a statutory remedy even if time-barred, provided there is a reasonable explanation for the delay and a willingness to compensate the other side. The Court expressly left undecided any issues pertaining to the merits of the appeal itself.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should grant liberty to the petitioner to file a time-barred statutory appeal against the adjudication order dated June 21, 2022, considering the exceptional circumstances presented. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional or deliberate but caused by unavoidable circumstances, specifically the death of its Managing Director and the subsequent unfamiliarity of his son with the company's affairs, which were in liquidation. They expressed readiness to avail the statutory remedy if permitted. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State or revenue authorities regarding the delay or the maintainability of the appeal.