Meghnath Kapri vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Meghnath Kapri, filed a writ petition before the High Court at Calcutta. The petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition on merits and requested liberty to pursue the statutory remedy. Specifically, the petitioner sought condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/West Bengal Goods Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner claimed to have sufficient cause for the delay, as detailed in paragraphs 48-50 of the writ petition, which involved a delay of approximately two years. The State respondents were unrepresented, though an advocate was engaged to appear on their behalf.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had made out a substantial and arguable case on merits in the writ petition, warranting an extensive hearing. It was also held that the petitioner had sufficiently explained the delay in preferring the appeal, with the explanation appearing satisfactory and deserving consideration. The Court found that the petitioner should not be non-suited on the ground of limitation, as a substantial question on merits requiring adjudication by the Appellate Authority had been raised. However, the condonation of delay was to be balanced with the imposition of costs. The Court directed that the delay in preferring the appeal be condoned upon payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited with the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority within one week. The petitioner was to file an Affidavit of Compliance before the Appellate Authority. Upon being satisfied, the Appellate Authority was directed to entertain the appeal, hear it on merits, and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks of the filing of the compliance report, granting the petitioner a personal hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should grant liberty to the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition on merits and pursue the statutory remedy of appeal. 2. Whether the delay of approximately two years in preferring an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017, should be condoned. The petitioner argued that sufficient cause for the delay was demonstrated in the writ petition and that the delay should be condoned to avoid the petitioner being non-suited, especially as a substantial question on merits had been raised. The State respondents did not present any arguments.