TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 248
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peal filed by the petitioner under Section 107 of the West Bengal/Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) had been rejected. 3. The petitioner claims to be the sole proprietor of M/s. Snehangi Traders, which is duly registered under the provisions of the said Act. 4. The petitioner contends that the petitioner has been regularly complying with the provisions of the said Act. Incidentally, on or about 8th June, 2023, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice under Section 73 of the said Act alleging short0payment/ non-payment of tax for tax period July, 2017 to March, 2018. The same culminated in the order dated 12th July, 2023 passed under Section 73 (9) of the said Act. The petition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....regard to the same, could not take appropriate steps in the matter. It is still further submitted that the petitioner was also unwell during the relevant period and in support thereof, a medical certificate issued by a qualified doctor had been disclosed. 8. By placing reliance on a judgment delivered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, in the case of Anhad Impex Through its Partner & Anr. v. Assistant Commissioner Ward 16 Zone 2 Delhi & Ors. (W.P.(C) 2356/2024 & CM. APPL. 9755- 56/2024) on 16th February, 2024, it is submitted that in a similar case where the impugned order was only available for viewing on "additional view notices" tab instead of "view notices" tab, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court was pleased to set aside the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on record. Admittedly, in this case, a show cause notice under Section 73 of the said Act, dated 8th June, 2023 had been issued. The petitioner contends that the petitioner did not get opportunity to respond to the same since, the same was not available for viewing on the "view notices" tab. In absence of any response being filed by the petitioner, the adjudication order under Section 73 (9) of the said Act was passed by the proper officer. Incidentally, such order was also not available in the "view notices" section of the portal and the same was available on the "view additional notices" tab of the portal. The petitioner claims that it had acquired knowledge with regard to the factum of passing of the aforesaid order only when the email ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thin the time prescribed had not been considered. Lack of knowledge, as regards passing of the aforesaid order, had not been considered by the appellate authority. The order impugned thus, appears to be perverse. 13. It may be relevant to note that it has already been held by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of S. K. Chakraborty & Sons v. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 4759 that the appellate authority is competent to hear an appeal by condoning the delay beyond one month from the prescribed period as provided in Section 107 (4) of the said Act. Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the view that the order dated 27th February, 2024, passed by the appellate authority, cannot be sustained and t....