Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Dhananjoy De, challenged an order dated 24 July 2025 passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, dismissing his appeal against an order dated 20 June 2023 passed under Section 74 of the Act. The appeal was dismissed on two grounds: (i) it was filed 27 days beyond the three-month limitation period (though within the further condonable one-month period under Section 107(4)), and (ii) alleged non-fulfilment of the mandatory pre-deposit condition. Out of a total demand of Rs.26,31,154/-, the petitioner had disputed only Rs.21,53,505/-, having already paid the balance as admitted tax.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the 27-day delay in filing the appeal deserved to be condoned.
  2. Whether the pre-deposit ought to have been computed on the disputed tax of Rs.21,53,505/- or on the total demand of Rs.26,31,154/-.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The delay of 27 days was occasioned because the petitioner was debilitated by rheumatoid arthritis, and was neither wilful nor attributable to laches.
  • Since the balance amount had already been paid as admitted tax, the mandatory 10% pre-deposit under Section 107(6) was required to be computed only on the disputed tax of Rs.21,53,505/-, and not on the entire original demand.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The appellate authority had computed the pre-deposit on the basis of the entire assessed demand rather than restricting it to the disputed portion, and defended the dismissal on both grounds of delay and non-compliance with pre-deposit.

Court Order / Findings

  • The explanation for the 27-day delay was found plausible and not indicative of gross negligence or laches; the delay, being marginal, was condoned.
  • On the pre-deposit issue, the Court held that this required fresh determination by the appellate authority upon a proper appreciation of the material on record, rather than being decided by the High Court in the first instance.
  • The impugned order dated 24 July 2025 was set aside and the matter remanded to the appellate authority for a fresh decision, with the appellate authority directed to first satisfy itself on the pre-deposit compliance before proceeding to hear the appeal on merits.

Important Clarification

  • The mandatory pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act is to be computed with reference to the disputed tax amount, not the entire assessed demand, where part of the demand stands admitted and paid.
  • A short, medically-explained delay within the further condonable period under Section 107(4) will ordinarily be condoned where it is not attributable to the appellant's laches.

Sections Involved

  • Section 74, CGST Act, 2017 – demand for tax involving fraud/suppression (original order).
  • Section 107, CGST Act, 2017 – appeal to appellate authority, including the pre-deposit condition and condonable limitation period under Section 107(4).

Decision – In Favour of

The Writ Petition is disposed of in favour of the Assessee to the extent that the delay in filing the appeal stands condoned and the pre-deposit issue is remanded for fresh consideration on merits; the Court has expressed no opinion on the correctness of the pre-deposit computation itself.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court at Calcutta, Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction, Appellate Side
  • Case No.: WPA 20712 of 2025
  • Coram: Hon'ble Justice Om Narayan Rai
  • Date of Order: 12 November 2025

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

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.