Julie Jaiswal vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Julie Jaiswal, filed a writ petition challenging an order in original dated December 19, 2024, passed under Section 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that she was not afforded an appropriate personal hearing and that the show cause notice incorrectly assumed royalty was taxable. She contended that the taxability of royalty was pending before the Supreme Court, and in any event, she was entitled to set off the amount against the reverse charge mechanism, thus precluding the invocation of the extended period under Section 74. The respondents, CGST authorities, objected to the writ petition on the ground of an alternative remedy.
Held
The Court noted that while there were disputes regarding the petitioner's receipt of prior hearing notices, a notice dated November 21, 2024, was served, and the petitioner had challenged its contents. The impugned order indicated that personal hearings were afforded on three occasions. However, due to the disputed questions of fact concerning the hearing notices and the objection raised by the CGST authorities regarding the alternative remedy, the Court decided not to delve into these controversies. The Court found it prudent not to entertain the writ petition but also recognized that the petitioner should not be left without a remedy. Consequently, the Court directed that if the petitioner files an appeal before the appellate authority within four weeks from the date of the order, and complies with other formalities, the appellate authority shall hear and dispose of the appeal on merits expeditiously, preferably within 12 weeks, and shall decide all points raised by the petitioner.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner was afforded an appropriate opportunity of personal hearing, as required by law, concerning the order dated December 19, 2024, passed under Section 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017? 2. Whether the extended period of limitation under Section 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, was rightly invoked by the revenue authorities? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that she was not given an appropriate opportunity for a personal hearing. She further argued that the show cause notice was based on the premise that royalty was taxable, a matter then pending before the Supreme Court. She asserted that even if royalty were taxable, she was entitled to set it off against the reverse charge mechanism, making the invocation of the extended period under Section 74 impermissible. Revenue's Arguments: The CGST authorities objected to the entertainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal.
Sections Cited
Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
9 01.09.2025 sb
Ct.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURI ICTION APPELLATE SIDE Julie Jaiswal Versus Union of India & Ors.
Ms. Sweta Mukherjee
… For the petitioner.
Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee
Ms. Aishwarya Rajyashree
… For the respondents/CGST
authorities
Challenging the order in original dated 19th December, 2024 passed under Section 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), the instant writ petition has been filed.
Ms. Mukherjee, learned advocate representing the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was not given appropriate opportunity of personal hearing. She would next submit that the show cause notice proceeds on the premise that the petitioner was required to pay tax on royalty. According to her, since, the above issue as to whether royalty is taxable was pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner had not paid the tax on royalty. In any event, the petitioner was entitled to set off the same against reverse change mechanism, as such, the extended period of Section 74 of the said Act could not have been invoked.
Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. I find that a show cause notice dated 3rd August, 2024 has been served on the petitioner. Though there appears to be some disputes as to whether the petitioner was served with the first and second notice of personal hearing, however, the fact remains that the notice dated 21st November, 2024 was also served on the petitioner. Though the contents of such notice had been challenged by the petitioner by the petitioner’s letter dated 27th November, 2024, however, I find from the order impugned that opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner on three several dates.
Since, there are disputes as to whether the petitioner had at all been given previous two hearing notices, I am of the view it shall be prudent for this Court not to enter into such controversy and decide on disputed questions of fact, especially when the petitioner has an alternative remedy in the form of an appeal and since, Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate representing the CGST authorities would object to this Court entertaining the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy.
Having regard thereto, I am of the view that this Court may not entertain the writ petition, at the same time the petitioner cannot be rendered remediless.
Having regard thereto, I am of the view that in the event, the petitioner files an appeal before the appellate authority within a period of four weeks from date, upon compliance with the other formalities, the appellate authority shall hear out and dispose of the appeal on merits as expeditiously as possible preferably within 12 weeks from the date of filing the appeal, and shall also decide all points raised by the petitioner.
With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Since, the writ petition is disposed of, the application being CAN 1 of 2025 having become infructuous, the same is accordingly dismissed. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of 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.