Sec 107(4) Limitation is Directory, Not Mandatory | HC

Case Details : Ram Kumar Sinhal vs. State of West Bengal - [2025] 177 taxmann.com 48 (Calcutta) 

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar, JJ.
• Dhiraj Lakhotia,
• Ms. Radhika Agarwal,
• Ms. Meghana Joshi,
• Ms. Khushi Kundu and Ms. Madhulika Sharma for the Appellant.
• Momenur Rahaman and Ms. Rima Sarkar for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The Petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority against an ex parte assessment order. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation, and a writ petition filed against such appellate order was dismissed by the Single Judge. It was contended that in S.K. Chakraborty & Sons v. Union of India [2024] 159 taxmann.com 259/88 GSTL 328 (Calcutta), it had been held that the timelines stipulated in Section 107(4) of the WBGST Act are not mandatory and that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable, there being no express bar in Section 107(4). It was argued that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act should apply. It was also submitted that no individual communication was made directly to the Petitioner either by SMS or e-mail regarding the assessment order, and that uploading of the notice only on the Additional Tab would not constitute sufficient communication. The Petitioner claimed sufficient grounds for condonation of delay of about three months and twenty days beyond the four months’ outer limit provided in the statute. The matter was placed before the High Court.

HC Held

The High Court held that the timelines stipulated in Section 107(4) of the WBGST Act are not mandatory but merely directory, and the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable, there being no express bar in the statute. It was further held that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act would apply. In the present case, sufficient grounds had been made out for condonation of delay in filing the appeal after about three months and twenty days from the expiry of the four months’ outer limit provided in the statute, and the delay was accordingly condoned.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Order passed by Single Judge in writ petition (para 79), reversed
• S.K. Chakraborty & Sons v. Union of India [2024] 159 taxmann.com 259/88 GSTL 328 (Calcutta)(para 33), followed

List of Cases Referred to

• S.K. Chakraborty & Sons v. Union of India [2024] 159 taxmann.com 259/88 GSTL 328 (Calcutta) (para 10),
• Murtaza B Kaukawala v. State of West Bengal [2023] 156 taxmann.com 377 (Calcutta) (para 11),
• Delta Goods (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [2024] 167 taxmann.com 641 (Calcutta) (para 11),
• Chandni Crafts v. Union of India [2023] 148 taxmann.com 164/97 GST 419/74 GSTL 325 (Rajasthan) (para 11),
• Shreeji Developers v. State of Gujarat [2025] 172 taxmann.com 359/109 GST 360/97 GSTL 239 (Gujarat) (para 11),
• Mahaveer Trading Company v. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax [2024] 163 taxmann.com 515 (Allahabad) (para 13),
• Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India [2024] 162 taxmann.com 53/88 GSTL 158 (Chhattisgarh) (para 13),
• S.P. Singla Constructions (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [2025] 173 taxmann.com 241 (Patna) (para 13),
• Modine Thermal Systems (P.) Ltd. v. State of Uttarakhand [2025] 174 taxmann.com 1252 (Uttarakhand) (para 13),
• Adama India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [2024] 165 taxmann.com 95/89 GSTL 392 (Karnataka) (para 13),
• Lord Vishnu Construction (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [2025] 172 taxmann.com 794/109 GST 593/98 GSTL 85 (Patna) (para 17),
• Neelgiri Machinery v. Commissioner Delhi GST [2025] 172 taxmann.com 847/109 GST 507/97 GSTL 345 (Delhi) (para 17),
• Ola Fleet Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. State of UP [2025] 170 taxmann.com 66 (Allahabad) (para 17),
• Light Group v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2025] 174 taxmann.com 663 (Madhya Pradesh) (para 17),
• Viswaat Chemicals Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Ghatak [2025] 173 taxmann.com 419/98 GSTL 194 (Gujarat) (para 17),
• Surya Resmi Traders v. State Tax Officer [2025] 173 taxmann.com 644 (Kerala) (para 17),
• Tvl. Sri Renkanna Steels v. Asstt. Commissioner (ST),
• Chennai [2024] 165 taxmann.com 727/105 GST 834 (Madras) (para 17),
• Ishan Snax (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Revenue [2025] 176 taxmann.com 658 (Calcutta) (para 17),
• St Xaviers College Calcutta Alumni Association v. Dy Commissioner of Revenue CGST [2025] 173 taxmann.com 417 (Calcutta) (para 17),
• Sukumar Kundu v. Union of India [2024] 165 taxmann.com 583 (Calcutta) (para 17) and State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86 (para 18).