Biswajit Pramanik vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Revenue, Office Of The Charge Officer, Tamluk Charge And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Biswajit Pramanik, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated August 28, 2024, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Revenue under Section 73(9) of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. The petitioner alleged that a show cause notice dated May 13, 2024, was not properly served, as it was uploaded only under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab on the GST portal and not on the normal portal. Consequently, the petitioner claims to have been unaware of the notice until a recovery notice was received. Subsequently, a garnishee proceeding was initiated, leading to the realization of Rs. 3,98,000/- from the petitioner's bank account on February 13, 2026, for CGST and WBGST dues.
Held
The Court held that since the petitioner had not received the show cause notice and therefore could not file a reply, an opportunity must be granted. The Court directed the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice within four weeks for the financial year 2019-2020. The respondent authority is to consider this reply within eight weeks, pass a reasoned order after affording a hearing, and communicate the decision within a week thereafter. The Court also directed the bank authorities to de-freeze the petitioner's bank account to allow for seamless business operations, with the condition that the petitioner maintains a minimum balance of Rs. 12 lac. It was clarified that the amount already realized from the bank account would be subject to the final decision of the authority. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated August 28, 2024, passed under Section 73(9) of the WBGST Act and CGST Act is illegal and invalid due to non-compliance with the prescribed procedure for service of the show cause notice dated May 13, 2024? The petitioner argued that the show cause notice was not uploaded on the normal portal, but only under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab, preventing them from responding. They only became aware of the proceedings upon receiving a recovery notice. The petitioner contended that the entire process was contrary to law and lacked due compliance. The revenue or State respondent did not record any arguments in the judgment.
Sections Cited
Section 73(9), Section 79(i)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2026 Sl. No.: 42 „WBGST Act‟) and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017(hereinafter referred to as the said „CGST Act‟).
The petitioner submits that as per the impugned order, it has been alleged that a notice in form DRC01 has been issued to RTP vide reference No.ZD1905240188264 dated13.05.2024 requiring the
2 petitioner to show cause as to why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice along with interest and penalty.
The petitioner contends that the said notice and the subsequent proceedings are contrary to law and have been passed without due compliance with the procedure prescribed under the said Act.
It is further submitted that the said notice has never been uploaded in the normal portal and the same has been demonstrated from Annexure “P-3” at page 33 of the writ petition.
The petitioner states that the intimation has been mainly uploaded in the GST portal under the tab „Additional Notice and Orders‟ as a result of which the petitioner could not respond to the show cause notice issued by the respondent authority.
The petitioner submits that only after receiving the recovery notice the petitioner has been able to know about of the issuance of the show cause notice dated 13.05.2024. 10. In the meantime the respondent authorities initiated garnishee proceeding by issuing a recovery notice in Form GST DRC 13 under Section 79(i) (c) of the WBGST Act, 2017 in favour of the respondent no.2 and realised a sum of Rs.3,98,000/- pertaining from the Bank account of the petitioner on 13th February, 2026 which has fallen due on account of CGST and WBGST.
3
Having heard the parties and perusing the records, this Court is of the considered view that since the petitioner has not been able to receive the show cause notice and file a reply to the same, the petitioner must be given an opportunity to do so.
The petitioner is directed to file a reply to the show cause notice within a period of four weeks from date, for the financial year 2019-2020. The respondent authority shall consider the same within a period of eight weeks and shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with law, upon affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and communicate such decision within a week thereafter.
Since the Bank accounts of the petitioner have already been frozen due to issuance of the recovery notice, the Bank authorities are directed to de-freeze the account of the petitioner for continuing the business in a seamless manner.
The petitioner is directed to operate the Bank account by maintaining a minimum balance of Rs.12 lac in the account.
However, it is made clear that amount has already been realised from the Bank, and the petitioner shall abide by the result taken by the authority concerned.
With the above observation and direction the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
4
Since the affidavit has not been called for, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed to have been denied and not admitted.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.
( Smita Das De, 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.