Ranjeet Kumar Poddar vs. Supdt Range -I Rishra Division And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The appellant, Ranjeet Kumar Poddar, proprietor of M/s. Maa Tara Trade Link, filed an intra-Court appeal against an order dated March 25, 2025, passed in W.P.A. 28899 of 2024. The original writ petition challenged an order of cancellation of registration granted to the appellant under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. A show-cause notice was issued on August 14, 2024, directing the appellant to appear on the same date at 15:10 hours, and on that very date, the registration was suspended. The appellant contended that this did not provide adequate opportunity to present submissions. The appeal also addressed a delay of 25 days in filing.
Held
The Court held that the appellant was not afforded adequate opportunity to present his submissions. The judgment noted that the show-cause notice was issued on August 14, 2024, with a direction to appear on the same date at 15:10 hours, and on that very day, the registration was suspended. This indicated a lack of sufficient time for the appellant to put forth his arguments. Consequently, the Court disposed of the appeal by directing the appellant to treat the order of cancellation of registration dated September 6, 2024, as a show-cause notice. The appellant was given 15 days from the receipt of the judgment to submit a reply. Upon receipt of the reply, the authority was directed to grant a personal hearing to the appellant's authorized representative, consider the contentions, and pass fresh orders on merits within 10 days of the conclusion of the hearing. The Court explicitly stated that the allegations and stands taken by the appellant were not examined and that all contentions could be raised before the authority. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appellant was afforded adequate opportunity to present submissions before the cancellation of his GST registration, as required by law? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the GST Act, 2017). Petitioner's Argument: The appellant argued that the show-cause notice was issued on August 14, 2024, with a direction to appear on the same date at 15:10 hours, and on that very day, the registration was suspended. This procedure did not provide adequate time or opportunity for the appellant to submit his response and present his case, thus violating principles of natural justice. Revenue's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent CGST & CX Authority or the Superintendent Range-I Rishra Division Howrah CGST & CX Commissionerate regarding the adequacy of the opportunity provided.
Sections Cited
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
judgment and order.
On receipt of the reply, the authority concerned shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the authorized representative of the appellant, consider the contentions that may be advanced and pass fresh orders on 3 3 merits and in accordance with law within 10 days from the date on which the personal hearing is concluded.
It is made clear that the allegations made against the appellant/writ petitioner or the stand taken by the appellant before this Court or before the learned Writ Court have not been gone into and it is open to the appellant to raise all contentions before the authority.
No costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal formalities. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE I agree. (CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), 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.