Madhusudan Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax Midnapore Charge And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Madhusudan Agarwal, filed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order dated 09.04.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and an appellate order dated 15.05.2025 passed by the appellate authority. The adjudication order demanded tax, interest, and penalty. The petitioner's appeal before the appellate authority was dismissed solely on the ground of limitation, without considering the merits. The petitioner contended that the proceedings and the impugned orders were illegal, invalid, and passed in violation of natural justice and prescribed procedure. The State respondents argued that the appeal was rightly dismissed on limitation as the petitioner was granted ample opportunities.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case. The Court observed that the petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority only on the ground of limitation and not on merits. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, the Court found interference warranted in the ends of justice. Consequently, the appellate order dated 15.05.2025 was quashed and set aside. The Court directed the appellate authority (Respondent No. 2) to revisit the issue by considering the grounds taken in the petitioner's appeal on merits. The appellate authority was further directed to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a fresh reasoned order in accordance with law within 12 weeks from the date of the order, with the decision to be communicated to the petitioner within a week thereafter. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate order dated 15.05.2025, dismissing the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of limitation, is legally sustainable, particularly when the merits of the appeal were not considered, and if not, whether it violates the principles of natural justice and statutory procedure under the WBGST Act and CGST Act? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the appellate order was contrary to law and passed in violation of principles of natural justice and statutory procedure. The appeal was dismissed solely on limitation without considering the merits of the case. The petitioner claimed to have learned about the non-filing of an appeal only in December 2024 and subsequently preferred an appeal which was dismissed on limitation. Revenue's Arguments: The State respondents opposed the writ petition, submitting that the petitioner had been granted ample opportunities to defend their case, and therefore, the appeal was rightly dismissed on the ground of limitation.