Synthroma Laboratories vs. The State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Synthroma Laboratories, filed a writ petition challenging a pre-show cause notice dated July 19, 2024, issued under Form GSTDRC-01A. This notice threatened proceedings under Section 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, for the tax period 2019-21. The petitioner argued that no further steps had been taken on this notice, frustrating their right to seek benefits under Section 128A of the Act, which requires a notice under Section 73(1) for eligibility. The petitioner sought a direction for the proper officer to decide on the pre-show cause notice, issue a formal notice under Section 73(1) or 74(1) if necessary, or drop the proceedings if deemed appropriate. The matter was heard afresh after recalling a previous unsigned order.
Held
The Court directed the proper officer to decide on the pre-show cause notice dated July 19, 2024, based on the petitioner's response. If the proper officer determined that the pre-show cause notice should not be proceeded with, they were to drop the proceedings. Conversely, if a notice under Section 73(1) or 74(1) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, was deemed necessary, the proper officer was to issue it forthwith. The Court further held that in the peculiar facts of the case, where the pre-show cause notice remained outstanding for a year, if the proper officer decided to issue a notice under Section 73(1), the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the scheme under Section 128 of the said Act, provided they complied with all formalities and applied within 48 hours of the notice's issuance. The decision of the proper officer was to be taken within two working days from the receipt of the order. The Court emphasized that this order was passed due to the peculiar facts and should not be construed as a precedent.
Key Issues
1. Whether the proper officer should be directed to decide on the pre-show cause notice dated July 19, 2024, and issue a formal notice under Section 73(1) or 74(1) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, or drop the proceedings. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the pre-show cause notice had been pending for nearly a year without further action, thereby defeating their valuable right to seek the benefit under Section 128A of the said Act. They argued that eligibility for the benefit under Section 128A necessitates a notice under Section 73(1) of the said Act. The conduct of the respondents was aimed at frustrating this right. Therefore, they prayed for a specific direction to the proper officer to decide the pre-show cause notice and issue a formal notice or drop the proceedings. Revenue/State's Arguments: No specific arguments were recorded for the State respondents in the judgment.
Sections Cited
Section 74, Section 128A, Section 73(1), Section 128
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
AD 4 30.06.2025 Saswata Ct 5
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURI ICTION APPELLATE SIDE
WPA 4149 of 2025
Synthroma Laboratories Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Ms. Sweta Mukherjee
… For the petitioner.
Mr. Anirban Ray, GP
Md. T. M. Siddiqui, AGP
Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty
Ms. Sumita Shaw
Mr. Saptak Sanyal
… For the State.
Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record.
This matter has come up under the heading “to be mentioned” since the petitioner wanted to provide further clarification. Having regard thereto, upon noting that both the parties are interested to make further submissions, the unsigned order dated 26th June 2025 is recalled and the matter is heard afresh.
Although the writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging pre-show cause notice dated 19th July, 2024 issued in Form GSTDRC-01A, threatening to invoke proceedings under Section 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) in respect of the tax period 2019-21, however, Ms. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing
2
on behalf of the petitioner would submit that no steps have been taken in furtherance thereto with the object of defeating the valuable right of the petitioner to seek the benefit under Section 128A of the said Act. According to her, for the petitioner to be entitled to the benefit under Section 128A of the said Act, there must be a notice under Section 73(1) of the said Act. Unfortunately, the conduct of the respondents is aimed at frustrating the petitioner’s right to seek benefit thereunder. Having regard thereto, she prays for a specific direction upon the proper officer so that the proper officer can decide on the pre show cause notice and if he is of the view that a notice under Section 73(1) or 74(1) of the said Act is required to be issued, to issue such notice, or in the alternative if he is of the view that the proceedings need to be dropped, to drop the proceeding.
Mr. Sanyal, learned advocate appears on behalf of the State respondents.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and noting that the petitioner seeks to bring the pre show cause notice dated 19th July 2024 to a logical conclusion and considering the fact that the consideration on the pre show cause notice is pending for nearly a year, I am of the view that at this stage it would be prudent to direct the proper officer to decide on the pre show
3 cause notice on the basis of the response filed by the petitioner and if the proper officer is of the view that the pre show cause notice need not to be proceeded, the proper officer should drop the proceedings. On the contrary if he is of the view that a notice under Section 73(1) or 74(1) of the said Act should be issued, he shall forthwith issue the same.
Considering the peculiar facts and noting that the matter has been pending before this Court and noting that the pre show cause notice remains outstanding for a year, I am of the view that in the event the proper officer is of the view that the pre show cause notice is required to be issued under Section 73(1) of the said act, the petitioner shall be entitled to benefit of the Scheme introduced under Section 128 of the said Act provided the petitioner complies with all formalities and applies before the authority within 48 hours from the date of issue of such notice.
It is made clear that the aforesaid order has been passed in the peculiar facts noted hereinabove and shall not be construed as a precedent. The decision of the proper officer must be taken within two working days from the date of receipt of the order.
Since, no affidavits have been called for, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents.
4
With the above observations and directions, 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.