Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here

Case Name:

Anand Kumar Hirawat Vs. The Senior Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & WBGST, Burrabazar Circle & Ors.(High Court of Calcutta)

WPA 28195 of 2024

Date: 4th December 2024

Key Takeaways

• Liberal Interpretation of Limitation: The court held that limitation periods for GST appeals should be interpreted liberally when genuine hardship is shown.
• Natural Justice: The petitioner was not given adequate details or evidence of the alleged tax discrepancies, violating principles of natural justice.
• Section 107 of GST Act & Section 5 of Limitation Act: The court clarified that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to GST appeals, allowing condonation of delay beyond the prescribed period.
• Precedent Set: The decision reinforces that procedural technicalities should not override substantive justice, especially when the delay is due to factors like consultant negligence or pandemic-related issues.

Issue

Can the appellate authority dismiss a GST appeal solely on the ground of delay, even when the delay is due to genuine hardship and procedural lapses by the authorities?

Facts

• Who: Anand Kumar Hirawat, running a sole proprietorship (M/s Anand Impez), registered under GST.
• What Happened:
• In August 2023, tax authorities alleged short payment of tax and excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) for FY 2018-19, raising a demand of ₹11,61,287 plus interest and penalty.
• A show cause notice (SCN) was issued, but the petitioner couldn’t respond due to COVID-19 disruptions and his tax consultant’s negligence.
• An adjudication order was passed in November 2023, raising a total demand of ₹23,51,801 (tax, interest, penalty), without providing specific evidence or details to the petitioner.
• The petitioner filed an appeal in June 2024, explaining the delay, but the appellate authority dismissed it in July 2024 solely due to the delay in filing.

Arguments

Petitioner (Anand Kumar Hirawat)

• The delay in filing the appeal was due to the negligence of his tax consultant and lack of knowledge about the proceedings.
• The adjudication order was passed without providing specific details or evidence, violating natural justice.
• Requested the court to condone the delay and allow the appeal to be heard on merits.

State/Respondents

• The appeal was dismissed strictly on the ground of delay, as per the prescribed limitation period under the GST Act.

Key Legal Precedents

• S. K. Chakraborty & Sons Vs. Union of India ([2024] 159 taxman.com 259 (Calcutta)):
• The Division Bench held that Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017 does not expressly or impliedly exclude the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
• This means the appellate authority can condone delays in filing appeals if sufficient cause is shown.

• Relevant Sections:
• Section 107, GST Act, 2017: Deals with appeals to the appellate authority.
• Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963: Allows courts to condone delay if sufficient cause is shown.
• Section 29(2), Limitation Act, 1963: Makes Section 5 applicable unless expressly excluded.

Judgement

• The High Court found that the appellate authority’s dismissal of the appeal solely on the ground of delay was arbitrary, especially given the genuine hardship and lack of proper notice to the petitioner.
• The court quashed the appellate order dated July 9, 2024, and directed the appellate authority to reconsider the application for condonation of delay on its merits.
• If the authority finds the explanation for delay sufficient, it should condone the delay and hear the appeal on merits.
• All pending applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.

FAQs

Q1: What does this judgment mean for GST taxpayers?

A: It means that if you miss the appeal deadline due to genuine hardship (like consultant negligence or pandemic issues), the appellate authority should consider your reasons and may condone the delay, rather than dismissing your appeal outright.

Q2: Does the Limitation Act apply to GST appeals?

A: Yes, the court clarified that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to GST appeals under Section 107 of the GST Act, allowing for condonation of delay if justified.

Q3: What should taxpayers do if they miss a GST appeal deadline?

A: They should file an application for condonation of delay, clearly explaining the reasons. This judgment shows that courts may allow such applications if the reasons are genuine.

Q4: What happens next for Anand Kumar Hirawat?

A: The appellate authority must now reconsider his appeal, first deciding whether to condone the delay, and if so, hearing the appeal on its merits.

Q5: What is the significance of the S. K. Chakraborty & Sons case?

A: It established that the Limitation Act’s provisions for condoning delay apply to GST appeals, unless specifically excluded by the GST Act—which they are not.