Shankar Das vs. The Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Midnapore Charge, Wbgst And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Shankar Das, challenged an order dated August 16, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, for the tax period April 2019 to March 2020. The petitioner contended that the date of the personal hearing was scheduled prior to the submission of his response. The State, represented by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Midnapore Charge, was the respondent. The amount in dispute was not explicitly stated, but the court directed a deposit of Rs. 100,000/-. The procedural history involves the issuance of the impugned order and the filing of the present writ petition challenging it.
Held
The Court held that the adjudicating authority ought to have provided the petitioner with an appropriate opportunity to place his case, especially considering the provisions of Section 75(4) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The Court noted that the date of personal hearing was prior to the date of submission of the petitioner's response, indicating a procedural flaw. However, since an adjudication order had already been passed, the Court directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 100,000/- with the respondents within four weeks. Upon compliance, the order dated August 16, 2024, was set aside, and the respondents were directed to hear and dispose of the proceedings in accordance with law. The Court clarified that failure to comply with the deposit direction would result in the dismissal of the writ petition and the revival of the impugned order. The issue of the validity of the original adjudication order, if the deposit is not made, was left to be enforced.
Key Issues
1. Whether the adjudicating authority provided the petitioner with an adequate opportunity to present his case, particularly in light of Section 75(4) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, given that the personal hearing date preceded the submission of the petitioner's response? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the opportunity for a personal hearing was rendered ineffective as it was scheduled before he could submit his response, thus violating the principles of natural justice and the provisions of Section 75(4) of the Act. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or State in response to this issue.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2025 Midnapore Charge, WBGST & ors.
Mr. Ankit Kanodia Ms. Megha Agarwal Mr. Piyush Khaitan
….for the petitioner
Mr. A. Roy, Ld. GP Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty Mr. Saptak Sanyal
…… for the State
Challenging an order dated 16th August, 2024 passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) for the tax period of April, 2019 to March, 2020, the instant writ petition has been filed.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and noting the submissions from the parties and materials on record and in particular that the date of personal hearing was prior to the date of submission of response, I am of the view that the adjudicating authority ought to have given an appropriate opportunity to the petitioner to place his case especially having regard to the provisions contained in Section 75(4) of the said Act. However, at the same time, considering the fact that an adjudication order has been passed, I am of the view that the petitioner should be put to terms. Accordingly while directing the petitioner to deposit the sum of Rs. 100,000/- (one lakh) only with the respondents within a period of 4 weeks from date, I set aside the order dated 16th August, 2024 with a further direction upon the respondents to hear out and dispose of the aforesaid proceedings in accordance with law. All consequences shall follow.
It is, however, made clear that if the petitioner does not comply with the direction for making payment within the time prescribed, this order shall not enure to the benefit of the petitioner and the writ petition shall automatically stand dismissed without any further reference to this Court, in which case the order passed under Section 73 of the said Act dated 16th August,2024 for the tax period April 2019 to May 2020 shall revive and be enforceable in law.
(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.