9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (2) TMI 348 - HC - GSTMaintainability of appeal filed beyond the prescribed limitation period - condonation of delay in filing appeal - HELD THAT - Since the issue is pending before the Hon ble Supreme Court the respondents shall file their affidavits-in-opposition on or before February 28 2025. Affidavit-in-reply if any thereto shall be filed on or before March 20 2025.
The Court considered several core legal issues in this case. The primary issue was whether the petitioners' appeal under Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with the corresponding provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, could be entertained despite being filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. Another significant issue was whether the petitioners were denied a fair opportunity to respond to the show cause notice issued by the revenue authorities, which allegedly did not provide for a personal hearing.
Regarding the first issue, the legal framework is centered around Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which prescribes a limitation period for filing appeals. The petitioners filed their appeal 170 days beyond the initial three-month period and the additional one-month extension. The Court noted that the petitioners relied on a precedent set by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, which had previously allowed condonation of delay beyond the extended period. However, this precedent was under challenge before the Supreme Court, which had stayed its operation, creating a legal uncertainty about the applicability of the precedent to the petitioners' case. The Court reasoned that since the Supreme Court had stayed the operation of the Division Bench's judgment, it effectively suspended the legal basis upon which the petitioners sought condonation of delay. Consequently, the Court concluded that it could not pass an order condoning the delay until the Supreme Court rendered a final decision on the matter. On the second issue, the petitioners argued that they were not given a fair opportunity to respond to the show cause notice, as it was non-speaking and did not provide for a personal hearing. The petitioners claimed they sought an extension to reply to the notice because their Chartered Accountant was unavailable. The revenue countered that multiple opportunities were provided to the petitioners, who allegedly failed to respond deliberately. The Court examined the relevant provisions under Section 75(5) of the 2017 Act, which obligates the revenue to grant a personal hearing if requested. The petitioners contended that they had only sought one accommodation, which was within their rights under the Act. The Court took note of these competing arguments but decided not to make a definitive ruling on this issue at this stage, given the pending Supreme Court decision on the related matter of delay condonation. Significant holdings from the judgment include the Court's determination that it could not proceed with condoning the delay in filing the appeal until the Supreme Court resolved the issue. The Court emphasized that the stay order from the Supreme Court created a "suspended animation" of the Division Bench judgment, thereby preventing any immediate relief to the petitioners regarding the condonation of delay. The Court ordered the respondents to file their affidavits-in-opposition by February 28, 2025, and allowed the petitioners to file their affidavit-in-reply by March 20, 2025. The Court clarified that the issue of delay condonation could not be decided until the Supreme Court's final decision.
|
