Appellate Authority Directed to Decide Delayed Appeal on Merits as There Was No Lack of Bona Fide on Part of Assessee | HC
- Blog|News|GST & Customs|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 6 March, 2025
Case Details: Kamala Stores vs. State of West Bengal - [2025] 171 taxmann.com 514 (Calcutta)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.
-
Himangshu Kumar Ray, Sushant Bagaria & Subhasis Podder for the Petitioner.
-
Md. T. M. Siddiqui, Ms S. Shaw, T. Chakraborty & S. Sanyal, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee, a small partnership firm, filed an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, challenging an order passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act for the period July 2017 to March 2018. In compliance with statutory requirements, the assessee made a pre-deposit of Rs. 96,452 at the time of filing the appeal. However, due to a delay of 79 days, the assessee also submitted an application seeking condonation of delay, citing lack of proper knowledge of the GST portal as the reason for the delay. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal, holding that the delay exceeded the one-month discretionary period permissible under Section 107(4) and was therefore barred by limitation. Aggrieved by this decision, the assessee filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court challenging the rejection of its appeal.
High Court Held
The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that the appellate authority erred in rejecting the appeal solely on limitation grounds without appropriately considering the assessee’s bona fide reasons for the delay. The court observed that the assessee had acted in good faith by filing the pre-deposit and seeking condonation of delay, demonstrating a genuine intent to pursue the appeal. Given that the assessee was a small partnership firm, the appellate authority ought to have exercised discretion judiciously. Accordingly, the court directed the appellate authority to hear and decide the appeal on its merits, ensuring that the assessee is provided with an opportunity of hearing.
List of Cases Reviewed
- S. K. Chakraborty & Sons v. Union of India & Ors., 2023 SCC Online Cal 4759, relied on.
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied