After GST Firm Paid 10% Pre-Deposit, Calcutta HC Set Aside Rejection Of Its Late Appeal And Ordered A Fresh Decision

The petitioners challenged a demand order and summary in Form GST DRC-07 for FY 2018–19, dated 19 April 2024, under Section 73 of the CGST and WBGST Acts, and the dismissal of their appeal as time-barred.

They said the demand order had only been uploaded under “Additional Notice and Orders” on the GST portal, and that their tax consultant’s illness and other proceedings caused them to miss it; they learned of it when filing their annual return and filed an appeal on 1 January 2025 after paying 10% of the disputed tax.

The State submitted that the petitioners had received audit-related communications, reminders to reply to the show-cause notice, and personal-hearing notices, but had not responded or appeared.

The petitioners relied on *Ram Kumar Sinhal v. State of West Bengal* and *GSPR Developers Private Limited v. State of West Bengal & Ors.* in support of relief concerning delay and the appeal.

Section 73 of the CGST and WBGST Acts provides for determination of tax not paid or short paid; Section 107 provides for an appeal and the applicable time limits.

The Court considered *Ram Kumar Sinhal v. State of West Bengal*, including its discussion of whether delay in filing a GST appeal could be condoned and the interpretation of statutory timelines.

It also considered *GSPR Developers Private Limited v. State of West Bengal & Ors.*, where the Court addressed delay, payment of the mandatory pre-deposit, and recovery proceedings.

The present judgment does not set out a separate, definitive rule on the extent of the appellate authority’s power to condone delay; it directs reconsideration in the circumstances of this case.

The Court considered the competing accounts: the petitioners’ explanation for their failure to respond and delayed appeal, and the State’s evidence of reminders and hearing notices.

It concluded that the petitioners had made out a prima facie case for interference, having regard to their stated reasons for non-compliance and the delay in appealing.

In light of the 10% payment and the cited decisions, the Court set aside the challenged order and directed the appellate authority to reconsider the matter through a reasoned decision after giving the petitioners a personal hearing.

The Court quashed and set aside the order identified in its judgment as dated 20 February 2024.

The Court earlier identifies the appellate dismissal as dated 20 February 2026, so the date in paragraph 12 appears inconsistent in the supplied text.

The Court directed respondent no. 2 to revisit the matter and dispose of the appeal by a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks of receiving the Court’s order, after affording a personal hearing; the decision was to be communicated within a further week.