Mohammad Hasim Khan Vs State of West Bengal & Ors. (Calcutta High Court)

The Calcutta High Court has remanded an appeal by Mohammad Hasim Khan back to the appellate authority, instructing it to decide on the merits of a Goods and Services Tax (GST) case despite initial rejection based on a delay. The petitioner claimed unawareness of crucial notices uploaded on the common portal under “Additional Notices and Orders,” leading to an ex parte adjudication order.The case originated from an order dated August 4, 2023, issued under Section 73(9) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, concerning the tax period from July 1, 2017, to March 31, 2018. This order led to an appeal by the petitioner, which the appellate authority subsequently rejected on May 29, 2025, solely on the grounds of limitation (delay in filing).During the High Court hearing, Mr. Ray, representing the petitioner, argued that notices identifying discrepancies (Form GST ASMT-10), pre-show cause notices (Form GST DRC-01A), and the show cause notice (Form GST DRC-01) were all uploaded to the common portal under a section titled “Additional Notices and Orders.” He contended that due to this specific placement, the petitioner was unaware of these communications and, therefore, could not adequately respond, resulting in an ex parte adjudication. Upon discovering the adjudication order, an appeal was filed on March 29, 2025, along with the necessary pre-deposit, but this filing was unfortunately delayed.Mr. Ray submitted that the petitioner had provided an explanation for the delay, which the appellate authority deemed insufficient and consequently rejected the appeal. He further highlighted the current predicament of the petitioner, who is presently remediless because the Appellate Tribunal, the next statutory recourse, has not yet been constituted, thus seeking the High Court’s intervention.Conversely, Mr. Chakraborty, appearing for the respondents, maintained that the petitioner was fully aware of the proceedings and had even responded to the pre-show cause notice. He argued that if the petitioner chose not to engage further, the respondents should not be held accountable, and the appellate authority’s decision to reject the appeal due to the lack of a “cogent explanation” was appropriate.Justice in the Calcutta High Court acknowledged the arguments. While noting that the petitioner had indeed responded to the pre-show cause notice, which made the explanation of completely overlooking subsequent notices under “Additional Notices and Orders” less convincing, the court still considered the broader context.The court emphasized the multi-tier adjudicating process provided by the GST Act and the current absence of a constituted Appellate Tribunal. Given that the petitioner would otherwise be left without a statutory remedy, the High Court decided to intervene. It observed that all records are accessible on the common portal, making it more convenient for the appellate authority to review the case on its merits than for the High Court to download and examine extensive records.Consequently, while stating that the petitioner’s explanation for the delay was not “entirely sufficient,” the High Court, in the interest of justice, remanded the matter back to the appellate authority. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned subject to the petitioner paying a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks. If this payment is made and verified by the appellate authority, the appeal is to be heard and disposed of on its merits. The consequential demand, if any, in Form ALP-04 was quashed. Failure to comply with the payment direction will render this order ineffective, allowing the respondents to enforce their demand.This decision underscores the court’s pragmatic approach to ensuring justice when statutory remedies are temporarily unavailable, even when explanations for procedural lapses are not entirely robust.