KAMDHENU UDYOG PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE OFFICE OF THE CHARGE OFFICE, CT, BHABANIPUR CHARGE AND ORS

12.11.2026
04 Ct. No.10
AGM
WPA 4990 of 2026

Kamdhenu Udyog Private Limited & anr.
vs.
The Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, Office of the
Charge Officer, Commercial Taxes, Bhabanipur
Charge & Ors.

Mr. Ankit Kanodia.
Ms. Megha Agarwal.
Mr. S. Ojha.
Ms. Tulika Roy.

….for the petitioners


Ms. Manasi Mukherjee.
Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee.
….for the State-respondents

1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with the
record.
2. The petitioners in the present writ petition pray, inter
alia, for quashing of the Demand Order along with the
summary in Form DRC 07 for the financial year 2018-19
dated 19.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the Central
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017(hereinafter referred to
as the said ‘CGST Act’) and West Bengal Goods and
Services Tax Act(hereinafter referred to as the said
‘WBGST Act’) passed by the respondent no. 1 along with
the order of dismissal of the appeal filed by the
petitioners under Section 107 of the said GST Act, 2017
dated 1.1.2025 passed by the respondent no. 2 which
was subsequently dismissed on 20.2.2026 on the ground
of limitation of delayed filing of appeal beyond 3+1
month’s time for filing an appeal against the impugned

2
Demand Order which was not served on the petitioners
but was merely uploaded on the GST portal under the tab
‘Additional Notice and Orders’.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that the Tax Consultant who looked after the taxation
affairs of the petitioners, felt seriously ill and due to
multiple simultaneous proceedings, the petitioners lost
sight of the uploaded documents on the GST portal and
were unable to file an appeal before the authority within
the prescribed time mentioned in the statute.
4. The petitioners submits that, against the order of
adjudication dated 19.4.2024, an appeal was supposed to
be filed within 19.8.2024 but, due to unforeseen
circumstances, the petitioners were unable to file the
same on the GST portal within the statutory period.
5. The petitioners came to learn about the order of
adjudication only at the time of the due date of filing of
the annual return in GSTR Form-9.
6. Thereafter, the petitioners, on 1.1.2025, filed an
appeal before the respondent no. 2 upon payment of 10%
of the tax in dispute.
7. In this context, the petitioners have relied upon
paragraph nos. 30, 31 and 58 in the matter of Ram
Kumar Sinhal –versus- State of West Bengal reported
in (2025) 33 Centax 175 (Cal.) which are reproduced
below:
“30. There are two sub-issues involved under the
question as to whether the delay occasioned in
preferring the appeal before the Appellate Authority

3
could be condoned. The first component is whether the
Appellate Authority and/or the writ court had power
to so condone and secondly, whether, on facts of the
case, the same ought to have been condoned.
31. In. S. K. Chakraborty (supra) the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court categorically observed that the
timelines stipulated in Section 107(4) of the WBGST
Act are not mandatory and the provisions of the
Limitation Act are applicable.
58. It is well-settled that the strict rule of
interpretation is applied in respect of taxing and penal
statutes. Since the relevant provisions of the WBGST
Act are penal in nature and the WBGST Act itself is a
taxing statute, the strict rule of interpretation has to
be applied in construing its provisions. Going by the
said rule, where some action is provided for in the
statute to be done in a particular mode and manner, it
either has to be done exactly in accordance therewith
or not at all.”

8. The petitioners also relied upon paragraph nos. 14, 15
and 17 in the case of GSPR Developers Private Limited
–vs.- State of West Bengal & Ors in WPA 263 of 2026 on
11.06.2026 which are reproduced below:
“14. After hearing the rival contention of the parties
and upon perusing the materials available on records
this Court is primate facie satisfied that the petitioner
has demonstrated sufficient cause for further delay.
The Order dated 27.02.2025 has been communicated
to the Chartered Accountant who failed to inform the
petitioner. The petitioner came to learn of the
th
proceeding only on 29 May, 2025 upon initiation of
recovery.
15. Admittedly the petitioner has paid the mandatory
pre deposit of Rs. 14,58, 320/- and filed the appeal
on 01.09.2025. The amount of the Rs. 74,00,000/-
has already been recovered from the petitioner’s bank
account through garnishee proceeding.
17. To balance the equities and to secure the ends of
justice, this court is of the view that the interference is
warranted at this stage. The delay in preferring the
appeal deserves to be condoned. The initiation of the
recovery proceedings despite the debit of the
mandatory pre deposit, is contrary to the scheme of
the Act once an appeal is entertained.”

9. Learned counsel appearing for the State respondents
vehemently opposes the contention of the petitioners and
draws the attention of this Court to page 91 of the

4
present writ petition and submits that the petitioners
were very much aware of the proceedings, as it is evident
that the petitioners, being the auditee, have not paid any
amount in respect of the observations made in the audit
report. Secondly, the petitioners were given ample
opportunity of personal hearing with regard to the issue
involved herein. Personal hearing notices were issued on
2.1.2024 and 18.4.2024 respectively.
10. Despite such opportunity granted, the petitioners
have chosen not to appear before the authority
concerned, as a result of which the appellate authority
was compelled to pass the order of adjudication.
11. Despite repeated reminders made to the petitioner
by directing to file the reply to the show cause notice
dated 26.12.2023 within 25.1.2024, the petitioner
remained silent. A further reminder was also given on
13.4.2024 to file a reply by 18.4.2024, the same was still
not filed.
12. After hearing the rival contentions of the parties and
upon perusal of the materials available on record, this
Court is of the view that the petitioners have been able to
make out a prima facie case warranting interference at
this stage. Upon being satisfied with the reasons for non
compliance of the request made by the respondent
authorities to the petitioner for filing a reply to the
impugned show cause notice, and the delay caused in
not filing the appeal before the appellate authority within

5
the prescribed statutory period, this court observes that
the order dated 20.2.2024 is arbitrary, illegal and
inviolation of the principles of natural justice and the
order is unsustainable in the eye of law and is thus
hereby quashed and set aside.
13. Since the petitioners have paid 10% of the tax in
dispute, for balancing the equities and for the ends of
justice, this Court directs the respondent no. 2 to revisit
the issue by passing a reasoned and a speaking order in
accordance with law and to dispose of the said appeal
within a period six weeks from the date of
communication of this order upon affording opportunity
of personal hearing to the petitioners. Such decision shall
be communicated within a week thereafter.
14. With the above observation and directions this writ
petition stands disposed of in the light of Ram Kumar
Sinhal –versus- State of West Bengal ( supra) and GSPR
Developers Private Limited –vs.- State of West Bengal
& Ors (supra) without going into the merits of this case.
15. Since no affidavit in opposition has been called for,
the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed
to have been denied and not admitted.
16. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order be
supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.

(Smita Das De, J.)