Introduction
In the case of Sujit Das v. Senior Joint Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax[i], the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta (‘HC’) contemplated the significant issue of whether the Adjudicating Authority (‘AA’) possesses the jurisdiction for allowing condonation of delay beyond the limitations period prescribed under s. 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Act, 2017 (‘WBGST’), invoking s. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (‘LA’).
Brief Facts
In this case, the petitioner was aggrieved by a determination under s. 74 of the WBGST Act and challenged the Appellate Authority’s (‘AA’) refusal to condone the delay in filing an appeal under s. 107 of the WBGST Act.
The appeal was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period, so the petitioner also moved an application for condonation of delay under s. 5 of the LA. The AA dismissed the application for condonation and disposed of the appeal.
Consequently, the petitioner argued that the AA overlooked sufficient grounds for condonation and failed to exercise its jurisdiction. The respondents contended that the AA could not condone delays beyond one month from the prescribed period, asserting that the WBGST Act is a self-contained code excluding s. 5 of the LA.
Held
The HC condoned the delay and restored the petitioner’s appeal, holding that the AA had failed to exercise its power by not condoning the delay beyond the prescribed one-month period.
The HC emphasised that the AA had the power to condone the delay beyond the period of one month prescribed under s. 107(4) of the WBGST Act. Reliance was placed on a Division Bench judgment in S. K Chakraborty & Sons v. Union of India[ii], wherein the court interpreted that in the absence of specific exclusion of s. 5 of the LA, the AA is not denuded of its power to condone the delay beyond one month from the prescribed period of limitation. Therefore, the WBGST Act and s. 5 of the LA were held to be compatible.
The HC itself found the petitioner’s explanation for the delay satisfactory, thereby setting aside the order of the AA and directing the AA to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits within one month without unnecessary adjournments.
Our Analysis
This judgment underscores the AA’s obligation to consider applications for condoning delays as provided under s. 107(4) of the WBGST Act. It affirmed the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal principles. By ensuring that the AA’s power includes the ability to condone delays beyond the specific period, the HC reinforces the importance of a thorough and fair adjudicating process. The decision highlights the interpretation that the WBGST Act does not implicitly exclude the application of s. 5 of the LA with reference to s. 29(2) of the LA.
It was clarified that there is no exclusion of s. 5 of the LA in the WBGST Act in view of s. 29(2) of the LA and in the absence of a non-obstante clause in the WBGST Act. This decision exemplifies the judiciary's role in interpreting and applying statutory provisions to ensure equitable outcomes and judicial discretion in ensuring justice over procedural rigidity. If justified, the ruling may impact future cases by providing a precedent for condoning delays beyond statutory periods, thus ensuring substantive justice.
End Notes
[i] 162 Taxmann.Com 376 (Calcutta).
[ii] (2023) SCC Online 4759.
Authored by Siddharth Jha, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinion.
More Insights
24-07-2026
10
min read
‘Shylockian’ Lending is ‘Squeezing of Blood’: NCLT Moves Beyond Debt & Default to Reject a Section 7 Application
In a rare departure from the conventional debt-and-default enquiry under section 7 of the IBC, the NCLT, Kochi Bench rejected the financial creditors' petition after characterizing the underlying arrangement as a ‘Shylockian system’ of lending. This court ruling discusses Shylockian lending and examines the strength of the Tribunal's focus on the economic substance of the transaction against established legal principles governing admission under section 7 of the IBC.
10-07-2026
7
min read
Faceless Reassessment after S. 147A: What the Supreme Court Did – and Did Not – Decide
The Supreme Court's decision in Tej Pratap Singh does not settle the JAO–FAO controversy. Following Parliament's retrospective insertion of s. 147A, it remands the issue to the High Courts for fresh consideration. Faceless reassessment was never merely about moving tax files from paper to portal; it fundamentally changed the statutory authority responsible for communicating with the taxpayer, examining the record, drafting the order and completing the assessment. The real question now is how far a retrospective legislative clarification can go.
22-06-2026
8
min read
Claim Admission is not Debt Acknowledgement: Supreme Court on RP’s Role & Limitation under the IBC
Can admission of a claim by a Resolution Professional extend limitation under section 18 of the Limitation Act? In Shankar Khandelwal v. Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court answered this question in the negative, holding that claim admission during CIRP is merely a statutory claim-verification process and not an acknowledgement of debt. The ruling clarifies the RP’s non-adjudicatory role and reinforces important principles governing limitation under the IBC.