38 Days delay in Filing GST Appeal due to Illness of Proprietor: Calcutta HC Directs Appellate Authority to Hear Case on Merit [Read Order]

The Calcutta High Court directed to rehear the matter of 38 days delay in filing an appeal against the assessment order under the Central Goods and Service Tax ( CGST ) Act, 2017 due to the illness of the Proprietor.

Krishna Enterprise, the petitioner challenged the order rejecting the petitioner’s appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017 ( “said Act”) on the ground of delay and on the ground that the petitioner had failed to make out sufficient cause for filing the appeal beyond the statutory period.

The petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 3rd August 2023 under Section 73 of the said Act on the ground of discrepancies found during scrutiny for the financial year 2017-18 in respect of the tax period July 2017-March 2018. The same was confirmed by an order dated 9th November 2023. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 107 of the said Act along with a pre-deposit of 10 per cent of the disputed tax.

Since the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, the petitioner submitted that he was unwell on or after February 2024 and his physician had advised him complete rest for a month. In support of his contention, a medical certificate had also been disclosed. The said affidavit also identifies that there is a delay of 38 days in filing of the appeal.

The petitioner was served with a notice asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the appeal should not be rejected for filing the same beyond the statutory period. Under the aforesaid, the petitioner’s representative appeared before the appellate authority and in support of his contention for condonation of delay, had placed the above affidavit affirmed by the petitioner’s proprietor on 18th March, 2024 that the petitioner’s proprietor was unwell on or after February 2024 and under the treatment of Dr. Bhaskar Mondal.

The appellate authority despite acknowledging the factum of the illness of the petitioner’s proprietor and the medical certificate, had proceeded to dismiss the appeal on the ground that there was no explanation offered by the petitioner for the period before February 2024 and that the petitioner otherwise had sufficient time to file the appeal.

Mr. Ghosh, advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had sufficiently explained the reasons for the delay. Unfortunately, the appellate authority, despite acknowledging the illness of the petitioner’s proprietor had purported to reject the same.

Mr. Chakraborty, an advocate appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, has strenuously argued that the petitioner has failed to offer any explanation as to what prevented the petitioner from preferring the appeal up to February 2024. In the absence of such an explanation being offered by the petitioner, it cannot be said that the appellate authority had committed any irregularity in rejecting the appeal.

Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury observed that there is no appropriate explanation provided by the petitioner for the period between 9th November 2023 and February 2024. However, there appears to be some explanation given by the petitioner for the period from February 2024 till 18th March 2024 when the appeal was filed. The doctor’s certificate has also been disclosed. The appellate authority has acknowledged the factum of the petitioner’s proprietor’s illness.

The Court viewed that justice will be sub-served if the appeal is directed to be heard out on merits subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the State Revenue Authorities. If such payment is made within two weeks from date, the appellate authority shall hear out and dispose of the appeal on merits preferably within a period of two weeks.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates