Sourav Ganguly vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sourav Ganguly, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated July 30, 2024, which rejected his appeal. The appeal was filed under an Amnesty Scheme that allowed appeals for orders passed by the proper officer on or before March 31, 2023, under Section 73 or 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, provided the appeal was filed by January 31, 2024. The scheme also required payment of 12.5% of the disputed tax, with at least 20% of that amount debited from the electronic cash ledger. The rejection order cited non-compliance with the Amnesty Scheme's terms and conditions, specifically regarding payment of admitted tax/interest/penalty and 10% of the disputed tax. However, the State conceded that Rs. 7,40,661/- had already been recovered from the petitioner on May 10, 2023, and May 29, 2023.
Held
The Court held that the rejection of the petitioner's appeal by the order dated July 30, 2024, was not proper. The Court reasoned that a sum much in excess of 12.5% of the amount of tax in dispute had already been recovered from the petitioner. To direct the petitioner to make further payment in light of these recoveries would be a travesty of justice. Therefore, the Court set aside the order dated July 30, 2024, and restored the appeal. The petitioner was deemed to be in deemed compliance with the payment requirements of the Amnesty Scheme to the extent of 12.5%. The appellate authority was directed to hear and dispose of the appeal on its merits expeditiously, preferably within 12 weeks from the date of communication of the order. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's appeal by the appellate authority on July 30, 2024, was proper, considering the payments already made by the petitioner under the Amnesty Scheme? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the rejection of his appeal was improper. He contended that the Amnesty Scheme, which permitted appeals for orders passed on or before March 31, 2023, under Section 73 or 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, had been availed. The scheme required payment of 12.5% of the disputed tax. The petitioner asserted that the amount already recovered from him significantly exceeded this 12.5% threshold, rendering the rejection based on non-compliance with payment terms unjust. Revenue/State's contention: The State, through its learned advocate, initially indicated that the appeal was rejected due to non-payment/short payment of admitted tax/interest/penalty and 10% of the disputed tax, and that the terms of the Amnesty Scheme dated November 2, 2023, were not complied with. However, upon instruction, the State conceded that a substantial sum had already been recovered from the petitioner.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 74, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2025 Item No. 04 ML CT. 5 sayandeep
WPA 30421 of 2024
Sourav Ganguly -Versus- State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala Mr. Rishi Raju Ms. Sruti Datta Ms. Sakshi Singhi …For the petitioners
Mr. Anirban Ray, Ld. GP Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty Mr. Saptak Sanyal …For the State
The supplementary affidavit filed in Court today be taken on record.
The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the order dated 30th July, 2024 whereby the petitioner’s appeal has been rejected though the petitioner had availed an Amnesty Scheme which permitted the petitioner to maintain an appeal in respect of orders passed by the proper officer on or before 31st March, 2023 under Section 73 or 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act. 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) provided the appeal is filed on or before 31st of January, 2024 under Section 107 of the said Act and the sum equal to 12.5% of the remaining amount of tax in dispute arising out of the order impugned subject to a maximum of twenty five crores rupees, in relation to which the appeal has been filed, out of which at least 20% was to be paid by debiting from the electronic cash ledger.
2
Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, although it would transpire from the form in GST APL 02 dated 30th July, 2024 that the appeal was rejected by reasons of non-payment/short payment of admitted tax/interest/penalty and 10% of the disputed tax and that in the detailed order, it was mentioned that the terms and conditions of the Amnesty Scheme dated 2nd November, 2023 had not been complied with, however, since Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate representing the State on instruction would submit that a sum of Rs. 7,40,661/- has already been recovered from the petitioner on 10th May, 2023 as also on 29th May, 2023, I find that a sum much in excess of 12.5% of the amount of tax in dispute has already been recovered from the petitioner.
Having regard thereto, I am of the view that the rejection of the appeal by order dated 30th July, 2024 was not proper as directing the petitioner to make further payment would be travesty of justice and as such while restoring the appeal by setting aside the order dated 30th July, 2024 by treating the petitioner to be in deemed compliance of the payment in terms of the Amnesty Scheme to the extent of 12.5%, I direct the appellate authority to here out and dispose of the appeal on merits as expeditiously as possible preferably within 12 weeks from the date of communication of this order.
With the above 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.