Chandan Burman And Anr vs. Assistant Commissioner State Tax, Asansol Charge And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Chandan Burman & Anr., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 17th November, 2023, passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioners contended that they had no knowledge of this order as they were not carrying on business activities until 2025, and only became aware of it upon receiving a recovery notice. The State, represented by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Asansol Charge & Ors., argued that if the order was uploaded on the portal, the petitioners should have been aware of it, as their portal was not suspended. The petitioners were also informed that an appellate remedy was available.
Held
The Court held that if the order impugned was uploaded on the portal, there was no reason for the petitioners not to be aware of it, especially since it was not their case that their portal remained suspended. The Court acknowledged that an appellate remedy is available to the petitioners. However, noting that the Appellate Tribunal is yet to be constituted, the Court decided to afford the petitioners an opportunity to challenge the determination made. Consequently, the petitioners were granted liberty to apply before the appellate authority along with an application explaining the delay in filing the appeal. If such an appeal, along with an application for condonation of delay, is filed within three months from the date of the order, the appellate authority is to consider it in accordance with law. The Court did not decide on the merits of the original order under Section 73.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioners had knowledge of the order dated 17th November, 2023, passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, considering their claim of not carrying on business activities until 2025 and only learning of the order upon receiving a recovery notice. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners argued that they had no prior knowledge of the impugned order because they were not conducting business operations until 2025 and only became aware of the order when a recovery notice was issued. They implicitly argued that the service of the order was defective. Revenue's Argument: The State contended that if the order was uploaded on the portal, the petitioners ought to have been aware of it, as there was no indication that the petitioners' portal remained suspended. They relied on Section 169(2) of the said Act, which deals with the modes of service of notice or order.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 169(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
29 15.09.2025 sb
Ct.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURI ICTION APPELLATE SIDE Chandan Burman & Anr. Versus Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Asansol Charge & Ors.
Ms. Rita Mukherjee
Mr. Abhijat Das
Mr. Anirban Chatterjee
… For the petitioners.
Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty
Mr. Saptak Sanyal
… For the State.
Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record.
Challenging the order dated 17th November, 2023, passed under the provisions of Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), the instant writ petition has been filed.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, though the petitioners would submit that the petitioners had no knowledge of the order since the petitioners were not carrying on business activities up to 2025 and it is only when the recovery notice was issued that the petitioners had come to learn with regard to the above order, I am of the view that having regard to the provisions contained in Section 169(2) of the said Act, if the order impugned was uploaded on the portal there was no reason for the petitioners not to be aware of the same. It is not the case of the petitioners that the portal of the petitioners remained suspended. Having regard thereto and noting that an appellate remedy is available to the petitioners, I am not inclined to interfere. However, at the same time, since the Appellate Tribunal is yet to be constituted, I am of the view that an opportunity should be afforded to the petitioners to test out the determination already made.
As such, the petitioners shall be at liberty to apply before the appellate authority along with an application explaining the delay.
If such appeal is filed along with the application seeking condonation of delay, within three months from date, the same shall be considered by the appellate authority in accordance with law.
With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for be given to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.
(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.