Jai Kumar Jaiswal Vs Superintendent, Central Gst, Sainthia Range, Birbhum Division and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Jai Kumar Jaiswal Vs Superintendent, Central Gst, Sainthia Range, Birbhum Division and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Order dated 15th July, 2024 rejecting the appeal quashed; petitioner permitted to file an application for condonation of delay within one month; appellate authority to dispose of that application within thirty days and, if the delay is condoned, hear the appeal on merits with an opportunity of hearing; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellate authority's rejection of the petitioner's appeal on the ground of limitation (caused by “NA” entered in Form GST APL-04) should be quashed and the petitioner permitted to file an application for condonation of delay, to be considered before the merits of the appeal.

Court's answer

Considering that the petitioner is a small businessman, that there is no lack of bona fide (the appeal was filed with the pre-deposit of Rs.10,900/-) and that no one stands to gain by filing a belated appeal, the Court quashed the appellate authority's order dated 15th July, 2024 rejecting the appeal on limitation and directed that the petitioner be allowed to file an application for condonation of delay.

Ratio / Principle

The appellate authority is directed to hear and dispose of the application for condonation of delay and, if the delay is condoned, to hear the matter on merits after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

Key takeaways

The petitioner shall file the application for condonation of delay within one month from date, and the application is to be heard and disposed of within thirty days from the date of its filing.ratio¶19
Basis of the Court's indulgence: the petitioner is a small businessman, there is no lack of bona fide on his part in preferring the appeal, and no one stands to gain by filing a belated appeal.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WPA 29452 of 2024, decided 05.02.2025) by Jai Kumar Jaiswal, a small businessman, against rejection of his GST appeal on the ground of limitation. An order in Form GST DRC 07 dated 23.11.2023 (passed on 19.12.2023) under Section 73(9) raised a demand of Rs.13,47,828/- tax plus 10% penalty of Rs.1,34,783/-, totalling Rs.14,82,611/- split equally between CGST and WBGST. The appeal, filed before the appellate authority (respondent no.2) with the requisite pre-deposit of Rs.10,900/- but delayed by 19 days, was rejected by order dated 15.07.2024 because the petitioner had mistakenly written “NA” in the delay-explanation field of Form GST APL-04. Holding that there was no lack of bona fide and nothing to gain by a belated appeal, the Court (Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.) quashed the rejection order, permitted the petitioner to apply for condonation of delay within one month, and directed the appellate authority to dispose of that application within thirty days and, if the delay is condoned, to hear the appeal on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing. No order as to costs.

04 jks 05.02.2025

WPA 29452 of 2024

Jai Kumar Jaiswal

Vs.

Superintendent, Central GST & Ors.

Mr. Souradeep Majumdar

… … for the petitioners

Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee Mr. K. K. Maiti

… … for the CGST Authority

Mr. Bipul Kumar Mandal Mr. Pradip Kumar Kundu

… … for the UOI

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that an order dated 23^rd November, 2023 was passed on 19^th December, 2023 in Form GST DRC 07, raising a demand of tax of Rs.13,47,828/- along with 10 per cent penalty of Rs.1,34,783/- totaling to Rs.14,82,611/- (equally segregated under CGST and WBGST). Being aggrieved with the order, an appeal was preferred before the appellate authority being the respondent no.2. However, the appeal got rejected on the ground of limitation as the petitioner while filling up the form under GST APL-04 instead of explaining the period of delay and the reason of delay wrote “NA” in the portal by mistake and the appellate authority rejected the appeal by an order dated 15^th July, 2024 on the ground of limitation.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prays for a direction that the petitioner be allowed to file an application for condonation of delay and to

2

consider the application for the delay before entering into the merits of the case.

Admittedly, in this case the petitioner had filed an appeal challenging the order passed under Section 73(9) of the said Act. Simultaneously, with the filing of the appeal, the petitioner had also made a pre-deposit of Rs.10,900/- as is required for maintaining the appeal. As such there is no lack of bona fide on the part of the petitioner in preferring the appeal. There appears to be a delay of 19 days in filing the appeal.

Taking into consideration that the petitioner is a small businessman and there is no lack of bona fide on the part of the petitioner and one does not stand to gain by filing a belated appeal, this Court quash the order dated 15^th July, 2024, the appellate authority shall allow the petitioner to file an application of condonation of delay.

Accordingly, I direct the appellate authority to hear and dispose for the application for condonation of delay and if the delay is condoned then hear the matter on merit upon giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

The petitioner shall file the application for condonation of delay within one month from date and the application for condonation of delay be heared and disposed within thirty days from the date of filing of the application for condonation of delay.

3

Accordingly, the writ petition being WPA 29452 of

2024 is disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Hon’ble Court.

(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.)