Facts of the Case

Sri Hara Prasad Das's appeal against an adjudication order dated 16.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act was dismissed on the ground of delay by an appellate order dated 12.11.2025 under Section 107. The condonation application had explained that papers were handed to an advocate who delayed the process due to illness and passed away on 14.01.2025, while the petitioner himself was occupied attending to his elder brother, who also passed away in January 2025; documents were retrieved from the deceased advocate's office only on 10.07.2025, and the appeal was filed shortly thereafter, on 12.07.2025. Meanwhile, pursuant to a recovery notice, the petitioner's bank (Axis Bank) had marked a lien of Rs.49,90,666 on his account.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the appellate authority properly considered the petitioner's explanation for delay, particularly the advocate's illness and subsequent death, before rejecting condonation.
  2. The effect on a bank attachment/garnishee where the appeal, once revived, is supported by a pre-deposit already made under Section 107(6).

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The delay was adequately explained: the engaged advocate had delayed the filing due to illness and subsequently passed away, and the petitioner took time to retrieve his papers from the advocate's chamber thereafter.
  • The appellate authority had considered only the petitioner's personal busyness with his brother's illness/death and ignored the advocate-related explanation altogether.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Counsel appeared for the State; no specific rebuttal of the facts regarding the advocate's death or the delay explanation is recorded.

Court Order / Findings

  • Held that where an engaged advocate delays filing an appeal and subsequently passes away, it is not uncommon for the client to take further time to engage a new advocate and retrieve papers — such delay can still be regarded as sufficiently explained.
  • Found that the appellate authority had not considered the condonation application 'in the right earnest', having looked only at the petitioner's family circumstances and ignored the advocate-related explanation.
  • Set aside the appellate order dated 12.11.2025 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration of the condonation application.
  • Since the petitioner had already deposited the pre-deposit required under Section 107(6) and the appeal now stood revived, held that recovery of the balance sum was deemed stayed under Section 107(7), and directed the State GST authorities to lift the attachment/garnishee on the petitioner's bank account.

Important Clarification

  • Once an assessee has paid the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of the CGST/WBGST Act and the appeal stands revived (on the appellate order itself being set aside for improper consideration of a condonation application), recovery of the balance disputed demand is automatically deemed stayed under Section 107(7), requiring any bank attachment or garnishee based on the original demand to be lifted, regardless of the eventual merits outcome of the appeal.

Sections Involved

  • Section 107, CGST/WBGST Act, 2017 — appeal to appellate authority; pre-deposit under sub-section (6) and automatic stay of recovery of balance amount under sub-section (7).
  • Section 73, CGST/WBGST Act, 2017 — the underlying adjudication order.

Decision – In Favour of

In favour of the Assessee.

Case Details

High Court at Calcutta, Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction (Appellate Side); WPA 26527 of 2025; Coram: Justice Om Narayan Rai; Order dated 01.12.2025.

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.