High Court of Calcutta
GSPR Developers (P.) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal
For assessee
WPA NO. 263 OF 2026
High Court of Calcutta
WPA NO. 263 OF 2026
Where adjudication order was not communicated to petitioner but only to its accountant who failed to relay information, leading to appeal delay until recovery action, dismissal of appeal as time-barred was unjustified since sufficient cause existed and mandatory pre-deposit was paid, warranting condonation of delay and admission of appeal for substantive appellate remedy.
Where petitioner learned of recovery only after bank accounts were frozen and payment of mandatory pre-deposit was made before filing appeal, interference was warranted to secure justice as recovery during pendency of appeal after pre-deposit violated statutory scheme, thus delay in filing appeal deserved condonation though garnishee freeze was ordered to continue till disposal of appeal
Section 107 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Section 79, read with section 107, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.
Members
The background, the issue before the court and the reasoning behind the decision are free for members — along with the professional discussion on this ruling.
Free to join. No card required.
Already a member? Sign in
Delhi High Court
Where DGGI issued composite show-cause notice to 146 noticees in proceedings relating to alleged IGST refund and ITC fraud, Notification No. 2/2017 as amended by Notification No. 2/2022 was held to validly confer pan-India jurisdiction on officers for DGGI SCNs and circular allocating competent adjudicating officer was held to merely regulate allocation without conferring jurisdiction, therefore jurisdictional challenge was to be rejected GST: Where composite SCN arising from DGGI investigation was assigned to common adjudicating authority based on highest amount of demand criterion, such criterion was held objective, quantifiable and uniformly applicable with rational nexus to single and consistent adjudication of one cause, and its application did not involve impermissible sub-delegation or enlargement of jurisdiction GST: Where Additional Commissioner, CGST, Delhi acting as common adjudicating authority passed order against Haryana-registered petitioners, appellate forum was held to lie before Commissioner (Appeals) of Commissionerate where common adjudicating authority was posted as already notified under Table III of Notification No. 2/2017 and clarificatory circular merely reiterated said position
Rajasthan High Court
Where petitioner’s statutory appeal delay was due to non-communication by CA not attributable to petitioner, and refusal to consider appeal on merits would cause serious prejudice, delay in filing was condoned and Appellate Authority was directed to hear appeal on merits
GSTAT Raipur
Where appellants challenged ex parte orders based on allegedly seized evidence and appellate authority dismissed appeals through identical, non-reasoned orders without dealing with seven distinct grounds or cited authorities, such non- speaking orders failed to exercise appellate jurisdiction and breached principles of natural justice, thus, considering foundational infirmities and ensuring fair opportunity, matter was to be remanded to original adjudicating authorities