Arup Kumar Dutta And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Arup Kumar Dutta & ors., filed a writ petition challenging two recovery notices dated February 26, 2025, and May 30, 2025. These notices were issued based on an order in original dated June 28, 2024. The petitioners contended that the order in original had not been served upon them. The respondents, the CGST authority, countered by presenting a show cause notice dated December 23, 2020, issued under Section 73(1), Section 75, Section 78, and Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017, along with subsequent hearing notices. The respondents asserted that these notices were sent via email to the registered email ID of petitioner no. 1 and were received. They argued that if these notices were received, the order in original, which was served via speed post, should also have been received.
Held
The Court acknowledged a dispute regarding the service of the order in original on petitioner no. 1. However, it noted the lack of explanation from the respondents as to why the order in original was not served by email, as had been done for previous notices, and was instead abruptly served through speed post. Considering this factual dispute, the Court deemed it prudent not to delve into the disputed questions of fact at that stage. Instead, it permitted the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy. The Court directed the respondents to provide a signed copy of the order in original dated June 28, 2024, to petitioner no. 1 within one week. Upon receipt, the petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal before the appellate authority within four weeks from the date of receipt, subject to compliance with other formalities. Consequently, the demand raised by the recovery notices dated February 26, 2025, and May 30, 2025, were set aside.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order in original dated June 28, 2024, was properly served on the petitioner no. 1, considering the dispute regarding its service via speed post versus the petitioner's claim of non-receipt and the respondents' reliance on prior email service of other notices. The petitioner argued that the order in original was not served. The respondents contended that while prior notices were served via email, the order in original was served via speed post. They presented evidence of prior email service of show cause and hearing notices, suggesting that the petitioner should have received the order in original. The respondents relied on the fact that the show cause notice was issued under Section 73(1), Section 75, Section 78, and Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Sections Cited
Section 73(1), Section 75, Section 78, Section 70, Section 174
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2025
sayandeep Sl. No. 17 Ct. No. 05 Arup Kumar Dutta & ors. Vs. Union of India & ors.
Mr. D.P. Dutta
Mr. Souvik Sen
Mr. Sumanta Ganguly
….. for the petitioners
Mr. Kaushik Dey
Mr. Kaushik Kr. Maiti
….for the CGST authority
Challenging two several recovery notices dated 26th February, 2025 and 30th May, 2025 issued on the basis of the order in original dated 28th June, 2024, the instant writ petition has been filed.
Although, the learned advocate for the petitioner would contend that the order in original had not been served, however, Mr. Dey, learned advocate representing the respondents has drawn the attention of this Court not only to the show cause notice dated 23rd December, 2020 issued under the provisions of Section 73(1), Section 75, Section 78 and Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017 but also to the subsequent hearing notices which have all been annexed to the writ petition.
According to the respondents, not only the show case but also the subsequent hearing notices were all issued through e-mail at the registered e-mail id of the petitioner no.
He would submit that since, the petitioner no.1 had received all the aforesaid notices, there is no reason for the petitioner no.1 not to receive the order in original dated 28th June, 2024, especially when the order in original was served on the petitioners through speed post.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties though, there appears to be some dispute as regards the service of notice on the petitioner no.1, there is, however, no explanation as to why the order in original was not served upon the petitioner no.1 by e-mail and was abruptly served through speed post. Considering the above, I am of the view that at this stage, it shall be prudent for this Court not to enter into such disputed questions of facts rather to permit the petitioner no.1 to avail the remedy in the form of appeal before the appellate authority provided, a signed copy of the order in original is made over to the petitioner no.1. 5. In view thereof, I propose to dispose of the aforesaid writ petition by directing the respondents to serve a signed copy of the order in original dated 28th June, 2024, to the petitioner no.1 within a period of 1 week from date. Upon receipt of the order in original, the petitioner no.1 shall be at liberty to take recourse to the same before the appellate authority in accordance with law provided, the appeal is filed challenging the aforesaid order in original within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of such order in original, subject to compliance of other formalities.
As a sequel thereto, the demand raised by the respondents vide notice dated 26th February, 2025 and 30th May, 2025 stand set aside.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is 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.