Soumyendu Bikash Jana vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the appellate authority failed to apply its mind to the matter properly and rejected the petitioner's appeal without appreciating the worth of the documents presented. The respondents did not demonstrate that the documents contended by the petitioner to be on record before the appellate authority were not actually there. This non-consideration of material on record rendered the impugned order perverse. Consequently, the order dated July 18, 2025, was set aside. The matter was remanded to the appellate authority for considering the petitioner's appeal afresh, taking into account the documents furnished by the petitioner along with their appeal. The petitioner was permitted to file an additional reply or submission. The appellate authority was directed to dispose of the appeal within six weeks from the date of communication of the order, strictly in accordance with law. The Court explicitly stated it had not gone into the merits of the petitioner's case, leaving all points open for the appellate authority to decide.

Facts

The petitioner, Soumyendu Bikash Jana, is challenging an order dated July 18, 2025, passed under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017. This order rejected the petitioner's appeal against an adjudication order dated April 28, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the said Act. The adjudication order was based on a show cause notice issued on December 23, 2023, alleging short payment of tax on outward supplies and liability to reverse excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the period April 2018 to March 2019. The petitioner failed to reply to the show cause notice. The petitioner contends that they had furnished all supporting documents to the appellate authority, demonstrating no excess ITC was availed, as they dealt with exempted goods, acted as a Goods Transport Agency (GTA), and paid taxes on taxable supplies. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal, which the petitioner argues was done perversely without considering the submitted documents.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority erred in rejecting the petitioner's appeal without properly considering the documents submitted in support of the contention that no excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) was availed, thereby violating principles of natural justice and rendering the order perverse? (Section 107, WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017) Petitioner's arguments: - The petitioner submitted all necessary documents to the appellate authority to substantiate their claim of not having availed excess ITC. - The petitioner dealt with exempted goods and provided Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services, which, along with payment of taxes on taxable supplies, meant no reversal of ITC was required. - The appellate authority failed to appreciate the transportation bills and other documents produced, leading to a perverse rejection of the appeal. - The petitioner has already paid the differential tax amount after the appellate order. Revenue/State's arguments: - The impugned order does not warrant any interference.