Meghnath Kapri vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Meghnath Kapri, filed a Writ Petition (W.P.A. 6010 of 2026) before the Calcutta High Court. The petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition on merits and requested liberty to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal. Specifically, the petitioner prayed for condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and the West Bengal Goods Services Tax Act, 2017 (WBGST Act). The petitioner referred to paragraphs 48, 49, and 50 of the writ petition to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay, which was approximately two years. The State respondents were represented by an advocate.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had made out a substantial and arguable case on merits, warranting an extensive hearing, and that failing to grant relief would prejudice the petitioner's interests. The Court found the petitioner's explanation for the delay, as set out in paragraphs 48 to 50 of the writ petition, to be satisfactory and deserving of consideration. The Court reasoned that the petitioner should not be prevented from pursuing the appeal due to limitation, given the substantial question of merits raised. However, the Court stipulated that condonation of delay would be balanced with the imposition of costs. The delay in preferring the appeal was condoned upon payment of Rs. 5,000/- to the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority within one week. The petitioner was directed to file an Affidavit of Compliance with proof of payment 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 delay in preferring an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017, should be condoned, considering the petitioner's explanation of sufficient cause. The petitioner argued that they had made out a substantial and arguable case on merits, and the explanation for the delay, as detailed in the writ petition, was satisfactory and deserved consideration. The petitioner contended that they should not be non-suited on the ground of limitation, as a substantial question requiring adjudication by the Appellate Authority had been raised. The petitioner sought condonation of delay to pursue the statutory remedy. The State respondents, while represented, did not record any specific arguments against the condonation of delay in the judgment.