Mohammad Sikandar Ali vs Assistant Commissioner

In a recent high-profile case, the Calcutta High Court has taken a significant step by granting a second chance to a taxpayer, setting aside the order of the appellate authority and remanding the case back to the original authority. This move allows the taxpayer an opportunity to substantiate their status as a registered government contractor.

Despite a considerable delay in filing the appeal, amounting to 297 days, the Court has opted to give the taxpayer a chance to present evidence within a strict timeframe of two weeks. The urgency of the matter is emphasized, putting time at a premium for the taxpayer.

The crux of the issue lies in the taxpayer having paid tax at a 12% rate, only to face a demand raised to 18% due to a lack of sufficient proof. As a condition imposed by the court, the taxpayer is now required to pay an additional Rs. 1 lakh.

A pivotal aspect of this case is the potential lifting of the bank account attachment if the taxpayer complies with the court’s directives within the stipulated time frame. This development adds a layer of suspense to the case, as the taxpayer’s ability to meet the conditions will determine whether justice is served.

The case raises intriguing questions about the judicial system’s approach to granting second chances to taxpayers, particularly in situations involving delays in filing appeals. Advocates for leniency may argue that allowing individuals an opportunity to prove their claims, even with delays, promotes fairness and justice. On the other hand, critics may express concerns about setting a precedent that could be perceived as lenient, potentially encouraging negligence in adhering to procedural timelines.

This case invites a broader discussion on the balance between enforcing procedural discipline and ensuring fair treatment for taxpayers facing legitimate challenges. As the legal proceedings unfold, it will be interesting to observe the outcomes and implications of the Calcutta High Court’s decision in this landmark case. What are your thoughts on this matter? Do you believe taxpayers should be given a second chance despite delays in filing appeals? Share your opinions and let’s engage in a thoughtful

1. This intra court appeal by the writ petitioner is directed against the order dated 11.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Bench in WPA 6923 of 2023 refusing to grant any interim order while entertaining the writ petition challenging an order passed by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal filed by the appellant as against the demand of tax on the ground of limitation.

2. At the request of the learned advocates on either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing along with this appeal. 

3. Certain facts are not in dispute. Show cause notice was issued on 22.09.2021 stating that there is short payment of tax and the assessee was directed to produce certain documents as evidence in support of his claim on the date mentioned in the show cause notice. The assessee did not reply to the show cause notice nor produced any documents. The excuse given by the assessee is not acceptable. On account of this, an order was passed on 26.11.2021 determining the tax liability under both the Central and the State Act and after the assessee’s bank account was attached, the appeal was preferred by the asseseee before the Senior Joint Commissioner of Revenue, Commercial Taxes, Siliguri Circle. There is a delay of 297 days in filing the appeal. After extending the benefit of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, yet there was a delay of 114 days. Obviously, the appellate authority is not empowered to condone the delay beyond a period of three months as there is a statutory embargo in terms of Section 107(1) of the GST Act, 2017. Therefore, the appeal was rightly dismissed. 

4. In this situation, it has to be seen as to what remedy the assessee would be entitled to. What we notice is that the assessee had already paid tax at the rate of 12% on the ground that he is a government contractor, but the demand has been raised by computing the tax as 18% for the reason that the assessee did not produce any document before the assessing officer to establish that he was a registered government contractor. 

Download PDF :
MOHAMMAD SIKANDAR ALI

For Reference Visit:
Calcutta High Court

Read Another Case Law:
GST Case Law