Rimoli Culture vs. Joint Commissioner State Tax Appellate Authority (GST) Behala Circle And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Rimoli Culture, challenged an order dated December 31, 2025, passed by the Directorate of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal. This order rejected the petitioner's prayer for condonation of delay in filing a reply to a show cause notice. The petitioner claimed the show cause notice, dated March 14, 2023, was served via the Additional Notices Portal, which they inadvertently missed. The show cause notice stipulated a reply deadline of March 31, 2023, and also stated that no personal hearing would be granted, despite statutory mandates for such hearings. The petitioner argued that the appellate authority failed to consider their case and that the rejection of the delay condonation was mechanical and lacked reasoning.

Held

The Court held that the order dated December 31, 2025, rejecting the petitioner's prayer for condonation of delay was unsustainable. The Court found that the appellate authority had not properly dealt with the case made out by the petitioner. The rejection of the condonation of delay was deemed mechanical and devoid of any reasoning. The Court also noted the anomaly in the show cause notice that denied a personal hearing, which is statutorily mandated. Consequently, the impugned order dated December 31, 2025, was set aside. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a reply to the show cause notice dated March 14, 2023, within two weeks from the date of the order. The Court also set aside an earlier order dated December 22, 2022, to facilitate the filing of the reply. Upon receipt of the reply, the respondents were directed to provide an opportunity for a hearing and pass a reasoned order in accordance with the law. The ratio decidendi is that rejection of a delay condonation application must be reasoned and not mechanical, and principles of natural justice, including the right to a hearing, must be upheld.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's prayer for condonation of delay in filing a reply to the show cause notice was justified, considering the alleged inadvertent non-receipt of the notice and the lack of reasoned order by the appellate authority? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the rejection of their delay condonation prayer was mechanical and lacked any valid reasons. They argued that the appellate authority failed to properly consider their submissions and the circumstances leading to the delay. Furthermore, the petitioner highlighted that the show cause notice itself was flawed by denying a personal hearing, which is a mandatory requirement under the statute for adjudication. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State respondents.