2023 (2) TMI 724 - HC - GST

Condonation of delay of 27 days in filing appeal - petitioner preferred an appeal before the competent authority under the West Bengal Goods and Services Act after a delay of 27 days from the statutory period of 3 / 4 months - HELD THAT - The learned advocate for the petitioner referring to a decision SURAJ MANGAR VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEST BENGAL STATE TAX, COOCH BEHAR CHARGE, JALPAIGURI, WEST BENGAL ORS. 2023 (2) TMI 544 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT submits that this Court can allow the petitioner to file an appeal where there is delay of negligible period by extending time as stipulated under Section 107 even after expiry of three plus one month. In view of such submission and under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Authority is directed to accept the Memorandum of Appeal and decide the appeal on merits within six weeks - It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter and the Appellate Authority is at liberty to decide the factual and legal issues involved in the appeal independently without being influenced in any way by this order. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Appeal under Section 107 of West Bengal Goods and Services Act, 2017 - Delay in filing appeal - Extension of time for filing appeal.

In this judgment, the Hon'ble Justice Bibek Chaudhuri of the Calcutta High Court addressed the issue of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Act, 2017. The section allows for appeals to be filed within a specified time frame, with provision for extension under certain circumstances. The petitioner in this case had filed an appeal after a delay of 27 days beyond the statutory period of three months. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal solely on the ground of being time-barred. The petitioner, citing relevant precedents, argued for the extension of time for filing the appeal, referring to a decision in WPA 2809 of 2022 and a Division Bench decision in MAT No. 1496 of 2022. Both decisions allowed for appeals to be filed even after the statutory period had expired by condoning the delay. The State's advocate also supported the petitioner's request based on these precedents.

The Court, considering the submissions and the legal precedents cited, directed the Appellate Authority to accept the Memorandum of Appeal and proceed to decide the appeal on its merits within six weeks. It was explicitly stated that the Court did not delve into the substantive aspects of the case, leaving the Appellate Authority free to independently assess the factual and legal issues involved in the appeal without any influence from the Court's order. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of, providing relief to the petitioner by allowing the appeal to be considered despite the delay in filing, in line with the principles established by previous judicial decisions.