Srichakra Prints PVT. LTD vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Srichakra Prints Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated February 21, 2024, passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Central/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This order rejected the petitioner's appeal, which was filed against an order dated August 8, 2023, passed under Section 73 of the said Act for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018. The appeal was filed on January 2, 2024, which was belated. The petitioner had also filed an application for condonation of delay and made a pre-deposit of Rs. 43,224/-. The appellate authority rejected the appeal due to the delay and the explanation provided by the petitioner.
Held
The Court held that while the petitioner's explanation for the delay in filing the appeal might not be entirely proper, the petitioner had demonstrated bona fide intent by filing the appeal and making the required pre-deposit of Rs. 43,224/-. The Court considered that for the ends of justice and given the pre-deposit and honest intentions, the delay should be condoned. Consequently, the order dated February 21, 2024, passed by the appellate authority was set aside. The delay in preferring the appeal under Section 107 of the said Act was condoned, and the appeal was directed to be restored to its original file. The appellate authority was instructed to hear and dispose of the appeal on its merits after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appellate authority erred in rejecting the petitioner's appeal on grounds of delay, despite the petitioner's explanation and pre-deposit, under Section 107 of the Central/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to confusion in identifying orders from the portal and lack of efficient staff, which hindered regular access. The petitioner contended that these circumstances led to the delay. The State-respondents argued that the orders were available on the portal, rendering the petitioner's explanation improper. They asserted that the appellate authority acted correctly in rejecting the appeal and no interference was warranted.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Form No.J(2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURI ICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury WPA 13226 of 2024
Srichakra Prints Pvt. Ltd. Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the petitioner
: Mr. Akash Dutta
Mr. Aditya Dutta
Mr. P. Kumar
For the State
: Mr. Anirban Ray
Mr. T. M. Siddiqui
Mr. D. Sahu
Mr. S. Sanyal
Heard on
: 9th July, 2024
Judgment on
: 9th July, 2024
Raja Basu Chowdhury, J:
Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record.
The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the order dated 21st February, 2024, passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Central/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”).
2
Being aggrieved by an order dated 8th August, 2023, passed under Section 73 of the said Act for the tax period July, 2017 to March, 2018, the petitioner had preferred the appeal. The appeal was filed on 2nd January, 2024. Since, the appeal was filed belatedly, the petitioner had also filed an application for condonation of delay. Simultaneously, with the filing of the appeal, the petitioner had also made pre-deposit of Rs.43,224/- as is required for maintaining the appeal under the provisions of the said Act. The appellate authority, however, by an order dated 21st February, 2024 had refused to accept the explanation given by the petitioner for condonation of delay and had rejected the said appeal.
Mr. Dutta, learned advocate representing the petitioner submits that since the petitioner was not served with the copies of the orders, there had been confusion in identifying the orders from the portal. The lack of efficient staff also made it difficult for the petitioner to access the portal on regular basis. The same resulted in delay in preferring the appeal.
Mr. Siddiqui, learned advocate enters appearance on behalf of the State-respondents. He submits that the orders were available on the portal and as such, the explanation given by the petitioner does not appear to be proper. There is no irregularity on the part of the appellate authority in rejecting the appeal. No interference is called for.
3
Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. Admittedly, in this case, it is noticed that the petitioner had preferred an appeal though the same was delayed. Simultaneously, with the filing of the appeal, the petitioner had also made pre-deposit of Rs.43,224/- as is required for maintaining the appeal under the provisions of the said Act. The aforesaid would demonstrate that there is no lack of bona fide on the part of the petitioner in preferring the appeal. Although the explanation given by the petitioner does not appear to be proper, however, for the ends of justice and taking into consideration that the petitioner had already made pre- deposit and has honest intentions, I am of the view that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
In view thereof, the order dated 21st February, 2024 is set aside. Having regard to the above, the delay in preferring the appeal under Section 107 of the said Act is condoned and the appeal be restored to its original file. The appellate authority is directed to hear out and dispose of the appeal on merits upon affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
4
All parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.) sb
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.