Ncpc-Acc-Ask(Jv) vs. State Of West Bengal And Anr
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, NCPC-ACC-ASK (JV), filed a writ petition challenging an order dated April 22, 2024, passed by the proper officer under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing and that two show-cause notices issued on December 13, 2023, and April 8, 2024, were at variance with the final order. While the petitioner was granted a personal hearing pursuant to the second show-cause notice, the court noted a variance in the demand raised in the show-cause notices and the adjudication order, with the latter being higher.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated April 22, 2024, should be treated as a show-cause notice to the petitioner. This decision was based on the observation that there was a variance between the demand raised in the show-cause notices and the adjudication order, with the latter being higher. The Court also noted the submission by the State's advocate that he could not improve upon the case presented in the impugned order. The petitioner was granted three weeks to respond to this order, treating it as a show-cause notice. If the petitioner responded, the proper officer was directed to provide a personal hearing and dispose of the matter within four weeks thereafter. If the petitioner failed to respond, the proper officer was obliged to decide the matter in accordance with the law within the same four-week period, without requiring a further opportunity for the petitioner to file a response. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated April 22, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, is vitiated by a lack of opportunity of hearing for the petitioner? 2. Whether the show-cause notices dated December 13, 2023, and April 8, 2024, are at variance with the final adjudication order dated April 22, 2024, thereby rendering the latter invalid? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the order was passed without providing a proper opportunity of hearing and that the show-cause notices were inconsistent with the final order. The petitioner relied on principles of natural justice and the requirement for consistency between show-cause notices and adjudication orders. Revenue's arguments: The State's advocate, Mr. Sanyal, stated that he was not in a position to improve upon the case as presented in the impugned order. No specific provisions or precedents were cited by the revenue.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 75(7)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2025 Item No. AD 4 Saswata NCPC-ACC-ASK (JV) Versus State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sayan Sinha Mr. Kausheyo Roy …For the petitioner Mr. Amitabrata Roy, Ld. GP Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty Mr. S.Sanyal Mr. Debraj Sahu …For the State
Challenging, inter alia, the order dated 22nd April 2024 passed by the proper officer under Section 73 of the WBGST /CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019, the instant writ petition has been filed.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and noted the submission of Mr. Majumdar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that not only the order impugned had been passed without affording the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing but the two several show cause notices issued in this case on 13th December 2023 as also on 8th April 2024 are at variance with the final order. I, however, note in furtherance to the second show cause notice dated 8th April 2024, the petitioner was in fact
2WPA 18556 of 2024 afforded with an opportunity of personal hearing, though the fact that there appears to be a variance in the demand raised in the show- cause and the adjudication order wherein the determined amount is higher than the show- cause notices, is clear. Having regard to the scope of Section 75(7) of the said Act and noting from the submission made by Mr. Sanyal learned advocate appearing for the State that he is not in a position to improve upon the case as appearing in the impugned order, it would be prudent at this stage to direct the order dated 22nd April 2024 to be treated as a show cause notice for the petitioner to respond to the same.
The petitioner shall be entitled to respond to the order treating the same to be a show-cause notice within a period of 3 weeks from date.
In the event, the petitioner responds to the show cause within the aforesaid period, or in the alternative fails to respond to the show-cause, the proper officer, upon giving an opportunity of personal hearing to petitioner, shall hear out and dispose of the aforesaid show-cause within a period of 4 weeks thereafter.
It is made clear that if the petitioner does not respond to the show cause within the aforesaid period, no further opportunity of filing response would be required to be given to the petitioner and in such case, the proper officer shall be obliged to decide the same in accordance with law within the aforesaid period.
With the above direction and observation, the writ petition is disposed of.
All parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from this Court’s official website. (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.