Case Summary
Case Title: Nanda Kishor Saha @ Nand Kishore Saha v. Union of India & Ors.
Court: Calcutta High Court, Court No. 5
Petition No.: WPA 13982 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 16 July 2025
Category of Dispute: Validity of order under Section 73(9), rejection of appeal under Section 107 on limitation, Input Tax Credit & Demand Proceedings
Relevant Sections: Section 73(9), Section 107 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017
Facts (Paras 3–5)
The petitioner challenged an order dated 14 December 2023 passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST/WBGST Act for the period July 2017–March 2018. Though the petitioner responded to the show cause notice on 13 October 2023, the reply was belated and hence disregarded by the proper officer. An appeal under Section 107 was filed but was rejected on limitation grounds, as there was a 128-day delay.
Questions (Para 7)
The dispute revolved around whether the petitioner’s reply to the show cause notice, though filed beyond the prescribed time but before adjudication, should have been considered by the adjudicating authority.
Observations (Paras 7–9)
The Court observed that since the reply was filed before disposal of proceedings, the proper officer was duty-bound to consider it. Procedural delay in filing response cannot defeat substantive justice. The appellate authority too erred in not appreciating this aspect while rejecting the appeal on limitation.
Judgment (Paras 9–11)
The High Court set aside both the adjudication order dated 14 December 2023 and the appellate order dated 25 May 2025. The matter was remanded to the proper officer for fresh adjudication on merits after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Consequential demands in Form DRC-7 dated 19 December 2023 and APL-04 dated May/June 2025 were also quashed.
Table of Cases Referred
| Case Name | Citation | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| (No external precedents specifically cited in judgment) | – | – |
Between Fine Lines
For trade and industry, this ruling emphasizes that replies filed before adjudication, even if delayed, must be duly considered. Authorities cannot ignore substantive responses merely on procedural lapses, and any demand raised without such consideration is liable to be quashed.
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.”
