Issues Involved :- The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging dismissal of the appeal preferred under Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The legal issue that falls for consideration in the present petition is whether the Appellate Authority has the jurisdiction and/or competence to condone the delay beyond the prescribed period of one month provided for filing an appeal under Section 107(4) of the said Act. Since the petitioner has not filed an application for condonation of delay, this Court cannot consider whether there is any sufficient cause for condoning the delay. No relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner at this stage. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following.

Petitioner impugns order whereby the impugned Show Cause Notice proposing a demand against the petitioner has been disposed of and a demand including penalty has been created against the petitioner. The order has been passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the Petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details. In view of the above, the impugned order cannot be sustained, and the matter is liable to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the second respondent rejecting the petitioner`s appeal against the order dated 06.10.2023. The petitioner has filed the appeal before the second respondent 14 days after the limitation expired for filing the appeal and thus, the appeal has been rejected by the Appellate Commissioner. This Court is of the view that the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Commissioner to dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, subject to the petitioner depositing additionally 20% of the disputed tax over and above 10% is as contemplated under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments.

The petitioner, in custody since 18.10.2023 in connection with alleged GST offenses under Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(f)(i) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, has been granted regular bail. The court considered the period of incarceration and the documentary nature of the allegations, noting that the trial could take time.

The petitioners challenged the attachment of their third bank account, which was reattached by the GST department after the previous attachment lapsed. The court ruled that once the attachment expires under Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, it cannot be re-imposed without lawful authority. The court ordered the lifting of the attachment and directed the account to be defreezed.