Non-Speaking One-Line Order Dismissing The Appeal For Delay In Filing Is Not Valid – Calcutta High Court
Facts: The Petitioner filed the writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court challenging the order dated 28th July, 2022 passed by the appellate authority, Senior Joint Commissioner of WBGST, in the appeal filed by the petitioner against the adjudication order dated 18th March, 2020.
It was submitted on the behalf of the petitioner that the full text of the adjudication order along with summary order was not furnished to it at any time. However, there is delay in filing the appeal as the petitioner came to know about the summary order dated 18th March, 2020, only when its bank account was debited on 28th July. Further explaining the delay in filing the appeal, it was submitted that it is covered by the order of the Supreme Court on major part of the delay, which occurred during COVID – 19.
Held: –
- The Hon’ble Court after considering the submissions made and facts of the case, found on perusal of the summary of the adjudication order dated 18th March, 2020 that as contended by the petitioner that ‘the full text of the order along with summary order was not furnished to the petitioner at any time’, the adjudication order does not contain any reason.
- Further it was found that the summary order dated 18th March, 2020 is a one-line order without stating any reason and the impugned order of the appellate authority is also a one-line order dismissing the appeal of the petitioner on the ground of delay in submission of the appeal, without going in to the merits of the appeal.
The Hon’ble Court with the above findings disposed of the Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned appellate order dated 28th July, 2022 and remanded the matter back to the appellate authority to pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law, on merits of the appeal, without insisting on the issue of limitation. The petitioner or it authorized representative shall be given proper opportunity of personal hearing. Further the liberty was granted to the petitioner to move an appropriate application for the refund of the amount collected in excess of pre-deposit before the Concerned authority, which shall be considered by them in accordance with law.
To read the complete judgment 2022 Taxo.online 817
