The Calcutta High Court has addressed a case involving a delay in filing a GST appeal, which was initially dismissed due to a 93-day delay beyond the allowable period. The case, titled "National Printing Works & Anr. v. Additional Commissioner, State Tax & Ors.," centered around the petitioners' appeal against a Section 73 adjudication order. The delay was attributed to the petitioners' reliance on their tax consultant, who was seriously ill at the time, supported by a psychiatric medical certificate. Despite the Appellate Authority's dismissal of this explanation, citing ongoing activity on the GST portal as evidence of non-reliance on the consultant, the High Court took a different view.
The court concluded that routine GST portal activity does not negate the necessity of a tax consultant for specialized tasks like filing appeals, which require expert handling. The petitioners’ reliance on the consultant was deemed reasonable and genuine, with the medical evidence corroborating the consultant's illness.
Read More: GST - Allahabad High: Section 75(7) expressly prohibits confirming liability beyond what is stated in the SCN [Order attached]
The court emphasized that procedural delays should be viewed with a practical and liberal approach, particularly when there is no indication of negligence or malicious intent. Consequently, the court set aside the appellate order dismissing the appeal and condoned the 93-day delay. The case was remanded back to the Appellate Authority for a hearing on the merits.
Order Date: 10 November 2025
Case Title: National Printing Works & Anr. v. Additional Commissioner, State Tax & Ors.
Facts
- The petitioners filed an appeal under Section 107 of the WBGST Act challenging a Section 73 adjudication order dated 29.03.2024.
- The appeal was filed after 93 days of delay beyond the limitation period, and the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay.
- The petitioners explained that delay occurred because their tax consultant (Shri Gupta) was seriously ill; a duly issued psychiatric medical certificate was furnished.
- The Appellate Authority rejected this explanation, citing GST portal activity (returns filed on time), inferring that the petitioners were not dependent on the consultant.
Issue
- Whether delay of 93 days in filing a GST appeal under Section 107 can be condoned when the taxpayer relied on an ill consultant for critical appellate work?
Order
- The Court held that GST portal activity (routine return filing) cannot negate reliance on a tax consultant for specialized work such as filing appeals, which often requires expert handling.
- The petitioners’ explanation was held to be reasonable and bona fide; the medical evidence showed the consultant’s illness was genuine.
- The Court observed that a practical and liberal approach must be adopted when procedural delay does not indicate negligence or mala fide intent.
- The appellate order dated 29.03.2025 was set aside, and the delay of 93 days was condoned.
- The matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority to hear the appeal on merits.
