2025 (11) TMI 183 - HC - GST

Writ petition dismissed as time-barred for delay; appeal under Section 107(1) (limited extension under 107(4)) required

Stores Cement through its partner Saugata Sarkar Stores Cement through its partner Saugata Sarkar Versus State of West Bengal & Ors.

HC held the writ petition not maintainable and dismissed as time-barred. The court found the inspection occurred on February 24, 2023 and an appeal ... Maintainability of petition - requirement to carry inspection search and seizure, only after recording reasons to believe - writ filed beyond the time limitation - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- This Court finds that the inspection was conducted sometimes on February 24, 2023. It is not in dispute that an appeal lies against the Order-in-Original dated November 19, 2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jalpaiguri Charge, Jalpaiguri. Section 107 (1) of the said Act states that such an appeal has to be preferred within three months from the date on which the decision or order is communicated to such person. Sub-Section (4) of Section 107 of the said Act states that 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, may allow it to be presented within a further period of one month - The instant writ petition has been filed only on August 25, 2025 i.e., well beyond the statutory period of limitation as well as the period specified under Section 107 (4) vesting power upon the appellate authority to condone the delay. After going through the order impugned, this Court finds that certain factual issues were involved in such adjudication. The Writ Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot act as the appellate court - It is well-settled that a writ petition cannot be entertained only because the same has been filed after the statutory period of limitation has lapsed when the order under challenge is an appealable one. That apart, the petitioner has challenged the very basis of the inspection which took place on February 24, 2023. A challenge against an inspection that was conducted way back in February 2023 in this writ petition which was filed on August 25, 2025 cannot be entertained as the petitioner has not explained the reasons for the delay between the period from February 24, 2023 till the passing of the Order-in-Original in the writ petition. This Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition - Petition disposed off. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable where the impugned Order-in-Original is appealable under the statutory scheme and the writ is filed well beyond the statutory limitation period for appeal. 2. Whether an inspection/search under Section 67(1) of the WBGST Act requires prior recording of reasons to believe and prescribed authorization (Rule 139), and whether challenge to the legality of the inspection can be entertained in a writ petition filed long after the inspection and long after the statutory period for appeal has lapsed. 3. Whether failure to supply copies of documents relied upon by the authority (alleged denial of natural justice) vitiates the Order-in-Original when (a) no contemporaneous objection was made before the original authority and (b) no attempt was shown to obtain the relied-upon documents prior to filing the writ. 4. Whether, in the circumstances where a writ petition has been entertained solely on procedural/limitation grounds and time has been consumed, the Court may permit the aggrieved party to approach the appellate authority and direct consideration of delay/condonation notwithstanding limitation rules, subject to statutory pre-deposit conditions. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Maintainability of Article 226 challenge where statutory appeal exists and writ is time-barred Legal framework: The statutory appeal regime provides an appeal against an Order-in-Original within three months (Section 107(1)) with a discretionary one-month extension for sufficient cause (Section 107(4)). Article 226 confers extraordinary jurisdiction but is subject to principles of restraint where an effective alternative statutory remedy exists. Precedent Treatment: The Court applied well-settled principles (no specific authorities cited in the judgment) that the writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily supplant an adequate and efficacious statutory appeal, particularly where the writ is instituted after the statutory period. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found the Order-in-Original to be appealable and that the writ was filed long after both the primary three-month period and the one-month extension window. The petitioner did not satisfactorily explain delay from the inspection date to the filing of the writ and had available the statutory appeal. The Court held that the Writ Court cannot function as an appellate forum and should not entertain an appealable order when delay has not been explained. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A writ under Article 226 is not maintainable to challenge an appealable adjudication after expiry of the statutory limitation where no sufficient explanation for delay is shown and an alternative remedy exists. Obiter - Remarks on the general impropriety of substituting writ jurisdiction for appellate remedy in tax adjudication contexts. Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on these grounds and was liable to be rejected for misuse of extraordinary jurisdiction and unexplained delay. Issue 2 - Legality of inspection under Section 67(1) and Rule 139 and timeliness of challenge Legal framework: Section 67(1) authorizes inspection/search/seizure where officers have recorded reasons to believe that suppression of transactions/stock or excess ITC has occurred; Rule 139 prescribes manner of authorization for such operations. Precedent Treatment: No express judicial authorities were invoked by the Court to resolve technical defects in inspection procedure; the Court examined factual record and parties' conduct. Interpretation and reasoning: The petitioner pleaded that the inspection was founded on an inspection report prepared during the search (suggesting absence of prior recorded reasons) and that prescribed authorization under Rule 139 was missing. The Court noted that those contentions attack the foundational legality of the inspection but treated them as merits/factual matters that ought to be ventilated before the statutory appellate forum. Given the long delay (inspection Feb 24, 2023; Order Nov 19, 2024; writ filed Aug 25, 2025) and availability of appeal, the Court declined to adjudicate these factual-legal issues in writ jurisdiction. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Challenges to the legality of an inspection based on procedural defects in Section 67(1)/Rule 139 are matters of adjudication on merits and, if the order is appealable, should ordinarily be raised in the statutory appeal rather than in a delayed writ. Obiter - The Court observed that an attack on the very basis of an inspection long after the event cannot be entertained without explanation for delay. Conclusion: The Court refused to decide the inspection-legality issue in the writ and maintained that such challenges are to be pursued in the appellate process within statutory timelines. Issue 3 - Alleged denial of natural justice by non-supply of relied-upon documents Legal framework: Principles of natural justice require that an affected party be furnished with documents upon which an authority relies so that he may adequately defend his case; procedural fairness must be raised at appropriate stages. Precedent Treatment: The Court applied the procedural principle that relief for denial of natural justice may be available in writ jurisdiction, but emphasised that the right must be asserted in a timely manner before the adjudicating authority and that litigants must demonstrate attempts to obtain documents if relied upon. Interpretation and reasoning: The record showed no contemporaneous objection before the original authority regarding non-receipt of relied-upon documents. The petitioner participated in hearings and made substantive submissions without asserting this specific grievance and did not file supporting documents to show attempts to obtain the materials. Thus, the Court found absence of procedural prejudice demonstrated to justify interference in writ jurisdiction, especially given the availability of appeal. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Failure to raise objection about non-supply of relied-upon documents before the adjudicating authority and failure to show attempts to procure those documents undermines a subsequent writ challenge on natural-justice grounds when a statutory appeal is available. Obiter - The availability of a writ remedy for gross denial of natural justice was acknowledged but qualified by the requirement of promptness and demonstrable prejudice. Conclusion: No ground for interfering on natural-justice complaint in the writ; the petitioner's omission to object and to seek documents before the authority precluded relief. Issue 4 - Court's discretion to permit filing of appeal and direction on condonation/limitation and pre-deposit Legal framework: Courts may, in appropriate circumstances, permit an appellant to approach the appellate forum and may direct consideration of condonation where interlocutory proceedings in the writ court consumed time; statutory pre-deposit conditions remain applicable. Precedent Treatment: The Court exercised discretion to avoid causing prejudice by the pendency of the writ petition, without deciding merits. Interpretation and reasoning: Recognizing that the writ itself had caused delay, the Court allowed the petitioner a 30-day window from receipt of certified copy to file the statutory appeal, directed the appellate authority to consider the appeal on merits without dismissing solely on limitation grounds, but made it explicitly conditional on fulfillment of statutory pre-deposit obligations under Section 107(6). The Court did not remit findings on merits and reiterated that it had not adjudicated substantive claims. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where a writ petition has been entertained and time thereby consumed, the Court may permit the litigant to file a statutory appeal within a limited period and direct the appellate authority to consider condonation, subject to statutory pre-deposit requirements. Obiter - The Court's directions do not prejudice the appellate authority's power to examine sufficiency of cause for delay in accordance with law. Conclusion: The petitioner was granted a limited opportunity (30 days) to file the statutory appeal; appellate authority directed to consider merits without rejecting on limitation alone, subject to pre-deposit compliance; the writ was disposed without entering merits.