TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate authority to independently consider delay condonation application under WBGST Act</h1> <h3>Jharna Seal Versus The Additional Commissioner, State Taxes, Directorate of Commercial Taxes & SGST, Siliguri Circle & Ors</h3> The court concluded that the appellate authority should consider the delay condonation application on its merits, emphasizing the applicability of Section ... Condonation of delay in filing appeal - applicability of provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allow for the condonation of delay - HELD THAT:- According to Section 107(4) of the Act 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 Hon’ble Division Bench in S. K. Chakraborty & Sons [2023 (12) TMI 290 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] considered the above issue and held that the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has not been expressly or impliedly excluded by Section 107 of the Act of 2017 and by virtue of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands attracted - The Court clearly held that the prescribed period under the Act of 2017 is not final and in given facts and circumstances of a case, the period for filing the appeal can be extended by the appellate authority. Conclusion - The provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has not been expressly or impliedly excluded by Section 107 of the Act of 2017 and by virtue of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands attracted. Petition disposed off. The issues presented and considered in the Calcutta High Court judgment are as follows:1. Whether the petitioner can file an appeal before the appellate forum despite the delay in doing soRs. 2. Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017Rs. 3. What is the effect of the stay order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the decision of the Division Bench of the High CourtRs.Issue-wise detailed analysis:Issue 1:The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal before the appellate forum despite the delay. The petitioner relies on previous court orders in similar cases.Issue 2:The relevant legal framework is Section 107(1) and Section 107(4) of the WBGST Act, 2017, which provide for the time limit to file an appeal and the provision for condonation of delay. The Court interprets that the prescribed period for filing an appeal is not final and can be extended by the appellate authority under certain circumstances.Key evidence and findings:The Court refers to the previous decision in S. K. Chakraborty & Sons case where it was held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is attracted and the period for filing an appeal can be extended by the appellate authority.Application of law to facts:The Court applies the provisions of the WBGST Act, 2017 and the Limitation Act, 1963 to determine that the appellate authority can consider and decide the application for condonation of delay filed by the appellant on merits.Issue 3:The Court considers the effect of the stay order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court.Key evidence and findings:The Court cites the case of Pijush Kanti Chowdhury vs State to establish that unless a decision is set aside, it remains a binding precedent. The stay order does not wipe away the decision of the Division Bench.Application of law to facts:The Court concludes that the order of stay passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court will not prevent the appellate authority from deciding the matter on merits. The appellate authority is bound to act in accordance with the decision of the Division Bench unless it is set aside by a superior forum.Significant holdings:The Court emphasizes that the prescribed period for filing an appeal is not final and can be extended by the appellate authority. The decision of a superior forum does not automatically nullify the decision of a lower court unless specifically set aside.In conclusion, the Court allows the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate forum and directs the appellate authority to consider the application for condonation of delay on its merits. The judgment highlights the importance of following legal procedures and respecting the decisions of higher courts while ensuring justice for the parties involved.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
