The Calcutta High Court has held that appellate authority is empowered to condone delays extending beyond the statutory period under Section 107(4) of the GST Act.
The bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj has observed that the appellate authority mechanically dismissed the application for condonation of delay as well as the appeal, without adequately considering the petitioner’s lack of knowledge regarding the impugned order’s issuance. Such an omission renders the appellate order perverse.
The petitioner/assessee, a Central Public Sector Undertaking registered under GST in West Bengal, is engaged in supplying steel products. The entity is a bona fide tax-compliant organization that transitioned to the GST regime in July 2017.
During April–June 2017, the petitioner carried forward CENVAT credits amounting to Rs.6,75,27,861 and service tax credits of Rs.8,95,695. These were transitioned to the GST regime via Form GST TRAN-1.
A mismatch was noted by the respondent in the petitioner’s GST returns for July 2017–March 2018, leading to the issuance of an ASMT-10 notice and subsequent demand for Rs.9,28,787 under CGST and Rs.33,092 under WBGST.
Notices were uploaded in the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab on the GST portal, bypassing regular communication modes, resulting in the petitioner’s unawareness of proceedings.
An ex-parte order dated August 08, 2023 confirmed the demand, prompting the petitioner to file an appeal on July 11, 2024. The appeal was delayed by 246 days due to procedural anomalies.
The department rejected the appeal on grounds of limitation without considering the merits, compelling the petitioner to seek recourse before the Court.
The court found that the petitioner has adequately explained the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. The appellate authority failed to appropriately consider this aspect and proceeded to summarily observe that, since the appeal was filed after a delay of 246 days, no reasonable cause was demonstrated for the delay.
Case Details
Case Title: M/s. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited -Vs- State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case No.: W.P.A 28840 of 2024
Date: 16.01.2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Rahul Tangri, Taniya Roy
Counsel For Respondent: A. Ray, G.P., Md. T.M. Siddiqui, T. Chakraborty, S. Sanyal
- Deepfake Evidence in Indian Courts: Navigating a Legal Grey Zone - August 3, 2025
- Indirect Tax Weekly Flashback: 27 July To 2 August 2025 - August 3, 2025
- GST Weekly Flashback: 27 July To 2 August 2025 - August 3, 2025
