Hahnemanns Jac Olivol Group Of Products Private Limited And Anr vs. The Joint Ommissioner Of State Tax, Bureau Of Investigation (South Bengal) Hq And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Hahnemann’s Jac Olivol Group of Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., challenged a show-cause notice issued by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax Bureau of Investigation (South Bengal) for the tax period April, 2022 to September, 2022. The petitioner contended that while the Bureau of Investigation has jurisdiction for investigation, the specific notification dated November 20, 2019, does not empower the Joint Commissioner to issue a show-cause notice under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the notification, particularly Clauses 4 and 5, defines the scope of jurisdiction for officers in the Bureau of Investigation, and this scope does not extend to issuing such notices. The petitioner cited previous judgments from coordinate benches of the High Court in similar factual circumstances.
Held
The Court acknowledged the jurisdictional issue raised by the petitioner and found a prima facie case warranting a hearing. While recognizing that a show-cause notice had already been issued, the Court deemed it prudent to direct the petitioner to respond to the notice and participate in the proceedings. The Joint Commissioner was granted liberty to decide on the proceedings. However, the Court stipulated that any order passed by the Joint Commissioner would not be enforced against the petitioner until the disposal of the writ petition or further order, whichever is earlier. The respondents were given four weeks to file an affidavit in opposition, with a further two weeks for the petitioner to file a reply. The Court did not definitively rule on the jurisdictional question in this interim order but allowed the proceedings to continue under specific conditions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Joint Commissioner of State Tax Bureau of Investigation has the jurisdiction to issue a show-cause notice under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, based on the notification dated November 20, 2019? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the notification dated November 20, 2019, issued under Section 4(2) of the said Act, which deals with the jurisdiction of officers in the Bureau of Investigation, does not confer the authority to issue show-cause notices under Section 73. They specifically referred to Clauses 4 and 5 of the notification, which they contended define the territorial and extent of jurisdiction for enforcement and investigation activities, but not for issuing show-cause notices. They relied on previous decisions of coordinate benches in S-Gen Consortium Infra Private Limited & Anr. v. The State Tax Officer, Bureau of Investigation (SB), Durgapur Zone & Ors. (WPA 4428 of 2026), Mrs. Anjita Dokania, Proprietor of M/s. MI Telecom v. The State Tax Officer (GST), Bureau of Investigation (South Bengal), Durgapur Zone & Ors. (WPA 23839 of 2024), and Poulami Ghoshal v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and Enforcement & Ors. (WPO 819 of 2024). Revenue's arguments: The State argued that an opportunity should be afforded to the respondents to file an opposition and that the proceedings should not be stalled since a show-cause notice has already been issued.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 4(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
10 08.07.2026 sayandeep
Ct.
Hahnemann’s Jac Olivol Group of Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Versus The Joint Commissioner of State Tax Bureau of Investigation (South Bengal) & Ors.
Mr. Ankit Kanodia
Ms. Megha Agarwal
Ms. Tulika Roy
Mr. S. Ojha
Mr. Piyush Khatian
… For the petitioners
Ms. Manju Agarwal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee
Ms. Manasi Mukherjee
….. for the State
The affidavit-of-service filed in Court today is taken on record.
Challenging the show-cause notice issued by the respondent No. 1 in his capacity as Joint Commissioner State Tax Bureau of Investigation for the tax period April, 2022 to September, 2022 under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) on the ground that though he has the juri iction to investigate into non-payment/short payment of taxes, by virtue of the notification dated 20th November, 2019, the same does not empower him to issue the show-cause notice.
Mr. Kanodia, learned advocate representing the petitioner has not only drawn the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 73 of the WEGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) but also to the notification dated 20th November, 2019 which came into force with effect from 1st December, 2019. By referring to the above notification, he would submit that the same deals with the juri iction of the officers posted in the bureau of investigation and has been issued in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the said Act. According to him, the Clauses 2 and 3 of the said notification deals with the territorial juri iction of the particular officers while Clause 4 thereof deals with the extent of juri iction exercisable by such officers. To morefully appreciate the same, the relevant Clauses being Clause 4 and Clause 5 of the said notification is extracted hereinbelow: “The officers posted in Headquarters or Zonal Offices of a unit of Bureau of Investigation shall exercise juri iction over any person including a taxpayer, transporter or person in charge of a vehicle, irrespective of the specific location of the place of business of such transporter or person, for carrying out enforcement activity in respect of storage of goods or transportation or movement of goods into, within, out of, or through the State of West Bengal, provided the goods are stored or the vehicle is intercepted within the territorial juri iction of the Headquarters or Zone of a unit of Bureau of Investigation in which s/he is posted. For the purpose of Investigation including ITC Investigation the officers posted in any Headquarters or Zonal Offices of units of Bureau of Investigation shall have juri iction all over State of West Bengal in connection with or incidental to investigation relating to taxpayer or person having principle place of business under the territorial juri iction of respective Headquarters or Zonal Offices, as the case may be.”
Having regard to the aforesaid, it is submitted that since the same does not confer any authority on the respondent no. 1 in his capacity as Joint Commissioner of State Tax Bureau to issue any show-cause notice under Section 73 of the said Act, the proceeding before him is a non-starter. He submits that in identical set of facts, a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of S-Gen Consortium Infra Private Limited & Anr. v. The State Tax Officer, Bureau of Investigation (SB), Durgapur Zone & Ors. (WPA 4428 of 2026), Mrs. Anjita Dokania, Proprietor of M/s. MI Telecom v. The State Tax Officer (GST), Bureau of Investigation (South Bengal), Durgapur Zone & Ors. (WPA 23839 of 2024), and Poulami Ghoshal v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and Enforcement & Ors. (WPO 819 of 2024) has entertained the writ petition. Accordingly, he pays for intereference by this Court.
Ms. Agarwal, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of the State. She would submit that an opportunity should be afforded to the respondents to file an opposition. At the same time, it is also her submission that since a show-cause notice has been issued, the proceedings should not be stalled.
Having heard the learned advocates and noting that a juri ictional issue has been raised and on the basis of the prima facie case made out, I am of the view that the writ petition should be heard. However, at the same time, taking into consideration the fact that the show-cause has already been issued, it would be prudent at this stage, to direct the petitioner to not only respond to the show-cause notice but also to participate in such proceedings. The respondent no. 1 shall be at liberty to decide on the proceedings. However, such order shall not be enforced insofar as the petitioner is concerned till the disposal of the writ petition or until further order, whichever is earlier.
The respondents shall be at liberty to file affidavit in opposition within 4 weeks, reply if any thereto, within 2 weeks thereafter.
Liberty to mention after expiry of the period for exchange of affidavit.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.