^®
TaxReply India Private Limited

GST Library

Best GST Library

Subscription Plans

TaxGPT

GST News | Updates

GST Calendar

GST Case Laws

GST Case Laws Sitemap

GST Notifications, Circulars, Releases etc.

Act & Rules

Act & Rules (Multi-view)

GST Rates

HSN Codes

GST Forms

My Favourites ^New

GST Diary

GST Notebook

GST Staff Manager ^New

GST Fees Manager

GST Council Meetings

GST Set-off Calculator

ITC Reversal Calculator

E-invoice Calculator

Inverted Duty Calculator

GSTR-3B Manual

GSTR-9 Manual

GSTR-9C Manual

Full Site Search

E-way Bill

Finance Bill

GST e-books

TaxReply Support

YouTube Videos

Twitter

Buy Premium Tax Domains

About Us

Our Services

🔒

TaxReply India Pvt Ltd

🔒

^®

Subscribe Free GST updates on...

Subscribe to Best GST Library of India and get ahead of the rest. Click here for plans. | GST Act & Rules e-book Click here. |

ROHIT KEDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX & OTHERS
(Calcutta High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY

Pet. Counsel

Sandip Choraria

Rishav Manna

Akash Chakraborty

Res. Counsel

Anirban Ray

T.m.siddiqui

N.chatterjee

Petitioner / Applicant	ROHIT KEDIA
Respondent	ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX & OTHERS
Court	Calcutta High Court
State	West Bengal
Date	Apr 7, 2025
Order No.	WPA 1461 of 2025
Citation	2025(4) TAXREPLY 13252
Original Order
My Favorites	Add to Fav ☆ Add to favorites.

TaxGPT ^Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

Listen this case in simple words

Audio Timeline

Audio Speed:

AA |

ORDER
ORDER 1. Challenging the order dated 3rd January 2025 passed under Section 107 of the CGST / WBGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) the instant writ petition has been filed. 2. It appears that the original order under Section 73 of the said Act was passed on 28th March 2024 in respect of the tax period April 2018-March 2019. The said order forms subject matter of challenge in the appeal. The Form GST APL – 02 demonstrates that the petitioner had deposited the pre deposit of Rs.58,903/- as is required for maintaining such appeal. It is submitted that there was a delay of 47 days in preferring the appeal. Although, an explanation was given, the appellate authority without appropriately considering such explanation, had dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. 3. Mr. Choraria, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that although the petitioner has an alternative remedy in the form of appeal before the a....