IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI
Sl. No.17
17.03.2021
Court no.3
Bpg
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WPA 107 of 2021
S.K. Chakraborty and Sons
Vs.
Union of India and others
Mr. Hillol Kr. Saha Poddar.
…for the petitioner.
Mr. Subir Kr. Saha,
Mr. Bikramaditya Ghosh.
…for the State.
Mr. Ratan Banik.
…for the Union of India.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated
September 12, 2018, from the office of the Deputy
Commissioner of State Tax Goods and Service Tax, Bureau of
Investigation, Unit-IV, Siliguri alleging suppression of sales by
the petitioner for the period 2017 -2018 and 2018 -2019 . The
petitioner made reply to such show cause notice and
ultimately, an assessment order was passed on 23 April,
2019, against the petitioner by the said Deputy Commissioner.
Against such order of assessment, the petitioner preferred an
- December 16,2019 before the appellate authority
- Joint Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Jalpaiguri,
beyond the period of limitation provided under the relevant statute.
The said appellate authority, by an order dated
December 24, 2019 declined to condone the delay in preferring
the appeal in view of section 170 of the West Bengal G. S. T. Act
2017. Challenging the said order, this writ petition has been preferred.
Law has been settled that the Court has no power to
extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds, even if
the statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience
to a particular party. (see New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd, (2020) 5 SCC7 57.)
The relevant provisions relating to limitation period for
preferring appeal under the West Bengal Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 is quoted below:
“107. (1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act or the Central Goods and Services Tax Act by an adjudicating authority may appeal to such Appellate Authority as may be prescribed within three months from the date on which the said decision or order is communicated to such person.
……
(4) The Appellate Authority may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of three months or six months, as the case may be, allow it to be presented within a further period of one month.”
The statutory period of filing the appeal was, therefore,
three months from the date of communication of the order.
The appellate authority could condone the delay of a
maximum period of one month in preferring the appeal if it
was satisfied there was sufficient reason for not preferring the
appeal within the period of three months from the date of communication of the order.
The aforesaid statutory scheme makes it clear that no
appeal could be preferred in any event beyond the period of four months from the date of communication of the order.
In the present case, admittedly, the appeal was filed
beyond the period of four months and the appellate authority
in view of the aforesaid decision of the Constitution Bench of
the Supreme Court could not extend the time period for filing the appeal beyond four months.
In view of the above, no interference is called for. The writ petition is dismissed.
It is, however, submitted by the petitioner that the
petitioner is ready and willing to pay the amount as assessed
by the assessing officer. It will be open for the petitioner to
approach the relevant officer for making such payment and the
said officer may accept such payment in accordance with law.
Accordingly, W.P.A. no. 107 of 2021 is disposed of without any order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied
for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Kausik Chanda, J.)
