The court affirmed that timelines in tax appeal processes are directory, not mandatory, allowing for flexibility under circumstances of procedural injustice.

JUDGMENT : 

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The present appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant/partnership firm, which was preferred against an order of the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the WBGST Act”), only on the ground of limitation.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

3. An intimation in Form GST DRC-01A was issued by the Proper Officer to the assessee/appellant detailing discrepancies for the tax period April 1, 2019 to March 31, 2020. The same was followed by a Show Cause Notice under Section 73 (1) of the said Act dated May 10, 2024. In the said Show Cause Notice, the date of personal hearing was scheduled on June 3, 2024 whereas the date for filing reply to the Show Cause Notice was mentioned as June 10, 2024.

4. The appellant filed a written representation/reply on June 10, 2024, specifically seeking therein a personal hearing.

5. However, by an ex parte assessment order dated August 12, 2024, the liability of the appellant was fixed at Rs.17,79,242/-. The Proper Officer was of the opinion that an opportunity of hearing had already been given to the appellant in the Show Cause Notice.

6. The order was uploaded on the self-same date, that is, on August 12, 2024 under the tab “View Additional Notices/Orders” (for short, “the Additional Tab”) on the GST Portal and the not under the “View Notices and Orders” tab (in brief, “the Normal Tab”).

7. The appellant filed an appeal under Section 107 of the WBGST Act on April 2, 2025, beyond the limitation period as stipulated in Section 107 (1) as well as the additional period of one month given under Section 107 (4) of the said Act. The reason for the delay, as pleaded by appellant, was two-fold – medical grounds of the two active partners of the appellant-Firm, and the difficulty in viewing the Additional Tab, under which the order was uploaded, since the said tab was not the Normal Tab under which such orders are supposed to be uploaded.

8. Upon hearing the appellant, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal only on the ground of limitation by an order dated April 23, 2025, which was the subject-matter of challenge in the writ petition bearing WPA No.1140 of 2025.

9. The learned Single Judge, by an order dated June 11, 2025, which is impugned herein, dismissed the said writ petition on the grounds as set forth in the said judgment, prompting the present appeal.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the learned Single Judge failed to take into consideration the judgment of S.K. Chakraborty and Sons v. Union of India, reported at (2024) 123 GSTR 229, where a co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that the Appellate Authority has the power to condone delay even after the statutory period stipulated in Section 107 of the WBGST Act. It is contended that the learned Single Judge failed to take into consideration the medical grounds cited by the appellant. Whereas both the active partners were engaged due to medical emergencies, the learned Single Judge took into consideration the disability of only one of the partners and proceeded on the premise that the other partners could have preferred the appeal in time. Secondly, it is argued, the learned Single Judge failed to take into consideration the settled proposition of law that in the ev