Appeal Reinstated Due to Marginal Delay and Ex Parte Order Under GST Act

Case Title: Ashok Kumar Saha vs. Union of India & Ors.
Court Name: Calcutta High Court
Petition Number: WPA 26030 of 2024
Relevant Sections: Sections 73 and 107 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017
Category of Dispute: Appeal Dismissed Due to Limitation – Opportunity of Hearing – Adjudication on Merits
Date of Judgment: 19.05.2025
Presiding Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury

Facts of the Case [¶1–2]

• The petitioner challenged the order dated 20.09.2024 passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST/WBGST Act, rejecting the appeal on grounds of limitation [¶1].

• The original adjudication order dated 18.12.2023 under Section 73 pertained to the tax period from July 2017 to March 2018 and was allegedly passed ex parte, without granting hearing [¶1–2].

• The petitioner had submitted a reply in Form DRC-06 on 11.10.2023, but it was not considered in the adjudication [¶2].

Question(s) in Consideration [¶1–2, 4]

• Whether the appellate authority rightly rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation despite marginal delay?

• Whether the ex parte order passed without considering the petitioner’s DRC-06 response and hearing violates principles of natural justice?

• Should the appeal be adjudicated on merits in light of non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal?

Observations of the Court [¶2–4]

• The Court acknowledged that under the CGST Act’s multi-tier adjudicatory scheme, and given that the Appellate Tribunal is yet to be constituted, the High Court had to intervene [¶2].

• Noted that the adjudication order was ex parte and that the response filed by the petitioner in DRC-06 was not considered [¶2].

• Held that appellate authority is better equipped to deal with factual determinations based on GST portal records and should reconsider the matter [¶3].

Judgment of the Court [¶4–7]

• The order dated 20.09.2024 rejecting the appeal under Section 107 was set aside [¶4].

• The matter was remanded back to the appellate authority to be decided on merits, after considering the DRC-06 reply and giving the petitioner a fair hearing [¶4].

• Consequently, the demand raised in Form APL-04 also stood set aside [¶5].

• It was clarified that the allegations in the writ were not admitted since no counter affidavit was called [¶6].

• The writ petition was disposed of with the above directions [¶7].

Between Fine Lines (Simple Summary):

1. The appeal was dismissed for a minor delay, but the Court found that justice demanded reconsideration.

2. The adjudicating officer ignored the taxpayer’s written response (Form DRC-06), violating fair hearing rights.

3. The High Court acknowledged the non-constitution of the GST Appellate Tribunal as a hurdle.

4. The matter was sent back to the appellate authority to decide afresh after a proper hearing.

5. All related tax demands for the period July 2017–March 2018 were also set aside.

Summary of Referred Cases

Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”