The Calcutta High Court has set aside an appellate order dismissing an appeal on the ground of limitation, holding that where the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 107(6) has been paid and the taxpayer has demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay, dismissal of the appeal solely on the ground of limitation amounts to a hyper-technical approach that renders the appellate remedy illusory. The ruling, by Justice Smita Das De in WPA 14368 of 2024 (VA Tech Wabag Ltd., decided 11.09.2026), condones the delay, restores the appeal and directs the First Appellate Authority to hear and dispose of it on merits within three weeks.
The petitioner had been served with an order under Section 73 dated 13.03.2023 disputing the quantum of interest charged. The petitioner filed an appeal on 21.08.2023, beyond the three months plus one month period prescribed under Section 107(1) and 107(4). The delay was attributable to the serious illness of the person entrusted with looking after the business affairs of the petitioner, as evidenced by medical documents. The First Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 29.11.2023 solely on the ground of limitation without dealing with the merits or the condonation application.
The court observed that the petitioner had demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay and had paid the mandatory pre-deposit. When the pre-deposit stands satisfied and there is substantial compliance with Section 107(6), the appellate remedy cannot be rendered illusory by a hyper-technical approach. To balance equities and secure the ends of justice, the delay was condoned, the impugned appellate order was quashed, and the First Appellate Authority was directed to admit and hear the appeal on merits within three weeks, with the petitioner directed not to seek any further adjournment.
- 2026-juristway.com-2467-HC(Calcutta)-GST | High Court of Calcutta | WPA 14368 of 2024 | 11.09.2026