Rita Ghosh vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Rita Ghosh, challenged a demand order dated November 30, 2023, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Revenue, Barrackpore. She filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. However, the Appellate Authority rejected her appeal because she failed to deposit 10 per cent of the disputed tax amount, which is a precondition for filing an appeal. The petitioner then approached the High Court by way of a writ petition, seeking adjudication of the demand order on its merits.

Held

The Court held that there is no scope for adjudicating the demand order on its merits in the present writ petition, as the petitioner's appeal before the Appellate Authority was rejected due to non-deposit of the requisite 10 per cent of the disputed tax amount. The Court reasoned that once the statutory appeal mechanism fails due to non-compliance with mandatory preconditions, the High Court cannot bypass this by examining the merits of the original demand order in a writ proceeding. The ratio decidendi is that a writ court will not entertain a challenge to an order on merits if the statutory appellate remedy was rejected for procedural non-compliance. However, the Court granted the petitioner an opportunity to cure the defect. If the petitioner deposits the amount in terms of Section 107(6) of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 within four weeks from the date of the order, the Appellate Authority shall consider and hear the appeal in accordance with law. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in a writ petition, can adjudicate the merits of a demand order when the statutory appeal against it was rejected for non-compliance with a pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6) of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the High Court should adjudicate the demand order on its merits. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the petitioner regarding the statutory provisions or precedents relied upon for this contention. Revenue's Contention: The State, represented by the revenue authorities, contended that there is no scope for the High Court to examine the demand order on merits once the appeal was rejected due to the petitioner's failure to deposit the requisite amount as per Section 107(6) of the Act.