M/S Canara Bank vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax, Large Tax Payers Unit And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Canara Bank, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, dated February 28, 2025, for the tax period 2020-21. The impugned order followed a show cause notice issued on November 19, 2024, to which the petitioner had responded and was granted a personal hearing. The petitioner contended that the order, particularly concerning the violation of Section 17(4) of the Act, was contrary to a GST circular and the provisions of Section 17(4) itself. However, the petitioner did not dispute the jurisdiction of the proper officer or the grant of a hearing.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The Court reasoned that since the statute provides a multi-tier adjudicatory process, including an appeal, an ordinary remedy should be pursued. The petitioner failed to establish any extraordinary circumstances that would justify invoking the writ jurisdiction. Furthermore, the petitioner did not make out a case for violation of the principles of natural justice or an exercise of power without jurisdiction. The challenge was primarily on merits, which is best addressed through the statutory appeal mechanism. Consequently, the petitioner was not entitled to any relief in the writ petition. However, considering the petitioner's subsequent request to prefer an appeal, the Court granted leave to file an appeal within four weeks from the date of the order, directing the appellate authority to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits, subject to the petitioner complying with other formalities.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when a statutory remedy of appeal is available under the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, and the petitioner has not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances, violation of natural justice, or lack of jurisdiction? (Section 73, Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017). The petitioner argued that the impugned order, specifically concerning the violation of Section 17(4), was de hors the relevant circular (Circular no.199/11/2023 GST dated 17th July, 2023) and the provisions of Section 17(4). The revenue or State did not record any specific arguments in response to this contention.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 17(4), Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
14 24.09.2025 sb
Ct.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURI ICTION APPELLATE SIDE M/s Canara Bank Versus The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Large Tax Payers Unit & Ors.
Mr. G. Sivadass, Sr. Advocate,
Ms. Sruti Datta
Mr. Rishab J.
Ms. Shraddha Rajgiri
… For the petitioner.
Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty
Mr. Saptak Sanyal
Mr. Debraj Sahu
… For the State.
Challenging the order passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) dated 28th February, 2025, for the tax period 2020-21, the instant writ petition has been filed.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, I find that in the instant case prior to passing of the order under Section 73 of the said Act, a show cause notice was issued on 19th November, 2024 pointing out several discrepancies. The petitioner had duly responded to the show cause and was also permitted to file additional submission in pursuance to personal hearing. Such fact would corroborate from the communication dated 7th February, 2025 appearing at page 119 of the writ petition.
Mr. Sivadass, learned senior advocate representing the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the order impugned as also to the Circular no.199/11/2023 GST dated 17th July, 2023 and would submit that the order impugned insofar as the same concerns violation of the provision of Section 17(4) of the said Act, is de hors such Circular and also the provisions of Section 17(4) of the said Act. I, however, notice that it is not the case of the petitioner that the proper officer who had passed the order did not have the juri iction to entertain the petition. It is also not the case of the petitioner that opportunity of hearing was not granted to the petitioner. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order on merits. In my view when multi-tier adjudicatory process is provided by the statute to remedy the wrong, ordinary remedy is to file an appeal. Only under extra- ordinary circumstances, the writ petition is permitted to be filed. The petitioner having failed to make out any such extra-ordinary circumstances and the petitioner not making out a case of violation of principles of natural justice or an exercise without juri iction, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The writ petition fails.
After the aforesaid order has been passed, the learned senior advocate for the petitioner seeks leave to prefer an appeal from the order impugned.
Having heard the learned advocate for the petitioner, and noting that the time to file the appeal has expired, I am of the view, in the event an appeal is filed within a period of four weeks from date, the appellate authority shall hear out and dispose of the appeal on merits subject to compliance of other formalities by the petitioner.
With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(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.