<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (7) TMI 1866 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775798</link>
    <description>The HC allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned orders of the Appellate Authority and Proper Officer. It held that the timelines under Section 107(4) of the WBGST Act are directory, not mandatory, and the Limitation Act applies. The court found a violation of natural justice as the notice under Section 73(1) was improperly uploaded only under the Additional Tab, failing proper communication. The Proper Officer did not provide the assessee an opportunity of hearing as mandated by Sections 73(9) and 75(4). The delay in filing the appeal was condoned due to sufficient cause. The restrictive scope of intra-court appeal was rejected since the Single Judge erred in strictly interpreting timelines while ignoring mandatory procedural safeguards. The petition was allowed, and the assessment order was quashed for failure to comply with statutory and natural justice requirements.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 17:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=839799" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 1866 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775798</link>
      <description>The HC allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned orders of the Appellate Authority and Proper Officer. It held that the timelines under Section 107(4) of the WBGST Act are directory, not mandatory, and the Limitation Act applies. The court found a violation of natural justice as the notice under Section 73(1) was improperly uploaded only under the Additional Tab, failing proper communication. The Proper Officer did not provide the assessee an opportunity of hearing as mandated by Sections 73(9) and 75(4). The delay in filing the appeal was condoned due to sufficient cause. The restrictive scope of intra-court appeal was rejected since the Single Judge erred in strictly interpreting timelines while ignoring mandatory procedural safeguards. The petition was allowed, and the assessment order was quashed for failure to comply with statutory and natural justice requirements.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775798</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>