9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (12) TMI 132 - HC - GSTMaintainability of petition - availability of alternative statutory remedy - Challenge to impugned order for not condoning the delay for filing an appeal - HELD THAT - Upon a thorough examination of the documents presented before the Court and taking into account the arguments put forth by the parties, this Court allows the writ petition on the grounds that the delay in filing the appeal by the petitioner was due to circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner. This rigid approach fails to account for genuine extenuating circumstances, reflecting a lack of judicial empathy and an unreasonable interpretation of statutory time limits. Given the petitioner's situation, this decision by the Appellate Authority to dismiss the appeal based solely on timing considerations was legally unsound. Moreover, the petitioner s right to further appeal has been obstructed by the non-formation of the GST Appellate Tribunal, effectively denying him a statutory right to a higher appeal. In light of the procedural irregularities, the arbitrary nature of the actions, and the statutory misapplication, this court finds the petitioner s case to be meritorious. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned orders dated February 27, 2024 is quashed.
Issues:
Challenge to impugned order for not condoning delay in filing appeal under WBGST Act, 2017; Violation of principles of natural justice; Allegations of biased and arbitrary actions by GST authority; Obstruction of statutory right to appeal; Constitutional rights infringement; Interpretation of statutory time limits; Non-formation of GST Appellate Tribunal. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a writ petition challenging an order by the Appellate Authority under the WBGST Act, 2017, which refused to condone the delay in filing an appeal. The petitioner, a sole proprietor of a business entity, received a demand order with penalties and interest, leading to the appeal process. The petitioner's initial advocate failed to file the appeal in time, resulting in rejection due to limitation. The petitioner alleged a lack of natural justice in the proceedings and biased actions by the GST authority. The petitioner contended that the delay in filing the appeal was beyond their control, but the Appellate Authority dismissed it as time-barred. The petitioner argued that the non-formation of the GST Appellate Tribunal obstructed their right to appeal, violating constitutional rights. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the appeal exceeded the permissible time limit under the WBGST Act, 2017, citing precedents emphasizing strict adherence to statutory time limits without discretionary authority for extensions. The Court, after examining the submissions and arguments, allowed the writ petition, criticizing the rigid approach of the Appellate Authority in dismissing the appeal solely based on timing. The judgment highlighted the lack of judicial empathy and the unreasonable interpretation of statutory time limits, ultimately quashing the impugned order and restoring the petitioner's rights under the WBGST Act, 2017. The Court also referenced relevant case laws emphasizing the applicability of procedural provisions and the need for a balanced approach in such matters. Additionally, the judgment referenced a previous case regarding the applicability of the Limitation Act to the WBGST Act, 2017, emphasizing the need to consider provisions of both acts in appeals. The Court found procedural irregularities, arbitrariness, and misapplication of statutes in the present case, leading to the decision in favor of the petitioner. The Appellate Authority was directed to consider the petitioner's application for condonation of delay on its merits, potentially allowing the appeal to proceed if justified. In conclusion, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned orders, and restored the petitioner's rights under the WBGST Act, 2017, with instructions for further proceedings. The judgment disposed of all pending applications, with no order as to costs, and directed all parties to act based on the official copy of the order from the Court's website.
|
