Introduction: In a recent development, the court heard the pleas of a petitioner who, as the proprietor of M/s. Annapurna Caterer, entrusted a Chartered Accountant (CA) named Sandip Kumar Jha with the financial affairs of her business. The petitioner faced complications when she discovered irregularities, leading to the blocking of her bank account for GST recovery. Subsequent efforts to contact the CA were in vain, revealing that the accountant had allegedly cheated multiple clients, including the petitioner.
Background: Upon investigation, it was revealed that a demand against the petitioner's firm in 2018-2019 had not been deposited by the CA. Unaware of an order issued on January 17, 2022, directing her to pay taxes, interest, and penalties by February 17, 2022, the petitioner only discovered it later. She promptly filed an appeal, accompanied by a plea under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of the appeal's delay.
Chronology of Events: The Joint Commissioner State Tax (Appeal), Siliguri Circle, issued a notice on June 7, 2023, directing the petitioner to show cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner responded on June 26, 2023, and subsequently, on June 27, 2023, the appeal was dismissed solely based on the ground of limitation.
Legal Argument: The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner, having entrusted her financial matters to the CA, should not suffer due to the latter's misconduct. Citing the case of Rafiq & Anr. v. Munshilal & Anr., the counsel emphasized that the petitioner, as a client, cannot be held responsible for the actions of her chosen advocate.
In the mentioned case, the Supreme Court acknowledged the limitations of a party in our adversary legal system, stressing that the client's duty is to select, brief, and pay the advocate, trusting them to handle the proceedings competently.
Court's Decision: Considering the petitioner's plea and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the court set aside the order dated June 27, 2023, dismissing the appeal on grounds of limitation. The court directed the concerned authority to reconsider the appeal on its merits, affording a reasonable opportunity for a hearing to all interested parties, including the petitioner. The authority was instructed to pass a reasoned order within one month from the date of communication of the court's decision.
Conclusion: The court's decision emphasizes the importance of ensuring justice for innocent parties who may suffer due to the actions or negligence of their chosen representatives. The case serves as a reminder that trust and faith placed in professionals, such as accountants or lawyers, should not lead to unjust consequences for their clients. The court's intervention ensures a fair reconsideration of the appeal, allowing the petitioner an opportunity to present her case on its merits.
Topic-Jayshree Bhardwah Versus Dy Commissioner of Revenue W.B. State Tax and Ors.
Court-CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Date-07/08/2023
Team Taxonation
Comment: