Facts of the Case

Eximpo Tea Limited filed WPA 26109 of 2025 before the High Court at Calcutta challenging an order dated 29.10.2025 passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017, whereby the petitioner's appeal against an adjudication order dated 05.06.2025 passed under Section 73 of the said Act was dismissed solely on the ground of delay. The petitioner's appeal was filed 35 days beyond the additional one-month condonable period under Section 107(4), on account of the serious illness of the mother of the company's authorised signatory coupled with financial distress. Despite the petitioner having deposited the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 107(6) during pendency of the appeal, its overdraft account with HDFC Bank and accounts with IndusInd Bank and Bank of Baroda remained attached on the strength of the original adjudication order, which stood confirmed by the impugned appellate order.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a marginal delay of 35 days in filing a Section 107 appeal, occasioned by the serious illness of the authorised signatory's mother and consequent financial strain, ought to be condoned.
  2. Whether bank account attachments made on the basis of the adjudication order should continue once the appellate order confirming it is set aside and the appeal restored.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Mr. Kejriwal, for the petitioner, took the Court through the condonation application and medical documents annexed, submitting that the appeal was delayed because the mother of the authorised signatory was seriously ill, leaving the petitioner debilitated both financially and logistically, resulting in a delay of only 35 days beyond the additional one-month period under Section 107(4).
  • It was further submitted that despite compliance with the statutory pre-deposit under Section 107(6), the petitioner's overdraft account in HDFC Bank and two other bank accounts remained attached on the strength of the adjudication order.
  • The appellate authority had refused to condone the delay without considering the ground of the mother's illness.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The order does not record any substantive opposition from the State or Respondent No. 8 on the condonation application; the matter proceeded principally on the petitioner's explanation for the delay and the Court's own assessment of the record.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court noted that the appellate authority had refused to condone the delay without considering the ground of illness of the mother of the promoter-director, who was the authorised signatory of the petitioner.
  • Having regard to the reasons assigned for the marginal delay, the Court held that it could not be said that the petitioner was grossly negligent in pursuing its case.
  • The delay was accordingly condoned, and the order dated 29.10.2025 was set aside; the appeal was restored and remanded to the appellate authority for decision afresh on merits.
  • Since the appellate order stood set aside, the attachments over the petitioner's bank accounts made on the strength of the adjudication order dated 05.06.2025 were directed to stand lifted.

Important Clarification

  • A marginal delay in filing a GST appeal, supported by genuine and documented hardship such as serious illness of a family member of the authorised signatory, should not automatically be treated as gross negligence warranting outright rejection of a condonation application; appellate authorities must substantively consider such grounds before refusing condonation.
  • Once the order confirming a demand is set aside on restoration of the appeal, consequential bank account attachments made on the strength of that order must also be lifted.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017 – determination of tax not paid or short paid, under which the original adjudication order was passed.
  • Section 107 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017 – appeal to the appellate authority; Section 107(4) permits condonation of a further one-month delay on sufficient cause, and Section 107(6) mandates a pre-deposit for maintaining the appeal.

Decision – In Favour of

In favour of the Assessee on the procedural question of condonation and consequential bank attachment; the delay was condoned, the impugned appellate rejection set aside, and the bank attachments lifted, while the substantive appeal itself was remanded for a fresh decision on merits.

Related Case Laws

  • See our earlier case notes on condonation of delay in filing Section 107 GST appeals on grounds of genuine hardship.
  • See our case notes on lifting of bank account attachments following remand of GST adjudication orders.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court at Calcutta, Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction, Appellate Side
  • Case No.: WPA 26109 of 2025
  • Parties: Eximpo Tea Limited vs Additional Commissioner of Revenue, GST Appellate Authority, Dharmatala Circle & Ors.
  • Coram: Hon'ble Justice Om Narayan Rai
  • Date of Order: 15.12.2025

Link to Download the Order

You can view/download the full text of the order here: https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1787067847_4526compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.