Sreeragam Exports Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Kolkata And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sreeragam Exports Private Limited, challenged an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, for the tax period April 2020 to March 2021. The challenge was based on violations of natural justice and failure to comply with statutory provisions, particularly Section 75(4) of the Act. The revenue contended that the petitioner's authorized representative appeared for a personal hearing on February 11, 2025, and was directed to produce additional documents within five days. The petitioner subsequently resent previous emails on February 13, 2025, in compliance with this direction. The court noted that the petitioner's representative's presence and subsequent communication suggested an opportunity for personal hearing was provided.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner was provided with an opportunity of personal hearing, as evidenced by the appearance of their authorized representative on February 11, 2025, and the subsequent communication on February 13, 2025. The Court found the revenue's case plausible, indicating that the petitioner's claim of no notice was not supported by the record. Regarding the consideration of documents, the Court stated that it could not examine this issue at the first instance, especially when an appellate remedy is available. The Court noted that the appellate tribunal was yet to be constituted. Therefore, the Court refused to entertain the writ petition directly but permitted the petitioner to approach the appellate authority and prefer an appeal within four weeks from the receipt of the server copy of the order. The appellate authority was directed to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner was denied an opportunity of personal hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that no notice of personal hearing was given or offered. The revenue contended that the petitioner's authorized representative appeared for a personal hearing on February 11, 2025, and was directed to submit documents, which the petitioner subsequently did. 2. Whether the documents submitted by the petitioner were appropriately considered by the proper officer? The petitioner raised this as a ground for challenge. The revenue did not explicitly argue this point, but the court addressed it in its decision.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2025 Item No AD 7 Saswata
WPA 10990 of 2025 Sreeragam Exports Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. Mr. Rites Goel …For the petitioner Mr. A.Ray, Ld. GP Mr. Md. T.M.Siddiqui, Ld. AGP Mr. T. Chakraborty Mr. S. Sanyal …For the State
As noted in the order dated 11th June 2025 the petitioner seeks to challenge the order passed by the respondent no.1 under Section 73 of the WBGST /CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) dated 25th February 2025 for the tax period April 2020 to March 2021 not only on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice but also on the ground of failure to comply with the statutory provisions especially under Section 75(4) of the said Act.
Today, Mr. Siddiqui learned Senior Advocate and Additional Government Pleader appears and places before this Court a copy of the order sheet dated 11th February 2025 to demonstrate that one Tarun Agarwal, the authorized representative of the petitioner had appeared for personal hearing. On the said date, the petitioner’s representative was also called upon to produce additional documents within 5 days, i.e., 16th February 2025. From the document appearing at page 132 of the writ petition forming annexure p-10 being a print out of the email dated 13th February, 2025 it would transpire that the petitioner in furtherance to the above direction had forwarded / resent the previous email. The tenor of the letter would record “Dear sir, as instructed we are resending the emails”.
Although, the petitioner has claimed no notice of personal hearing was given or offered, from the above disclosure and a perusal of the order dated 11th February,
2 2025 and the communication issued by the petitioner on 13th February 2025, the case made out by Mr. Siddiqui appears to be plausible. It is thus amply clear that in this case, the petitioner was provided with an opportunity of personal hearing.
The object of the statute is to ensure that when a request for opportunity of hearing is received in writing or where an adverse decision is contemplated, a personal hearing must be offered. There is no denial of the fact that in the instant case, a personal hearing has duly been offered. As to whether such direction for personal hearing finds place in the show cause notice or not, pales into insignificance having regard to the presence of the petitioner’s representative before the proper officer on 11th February, 2025 and the compliance of such direction by communication dated 13th February, 2025. 5. On the issue as to whether the documents had been appropriately considered by the proper officer, I am of the view that this Court cannot be called upon to examine the same at the first instance especially when an appellate remedy has been provided for in the said Act. In view thereof, while refusing to entertain the writ petition though noting that the petitioner cannot be rendered remediless, having regard to the fact that the appellate tribunal is yet to be constituted, I permit the petitioner to approach the appellate authority and prefer an appeal.
In the event, such appeal is filed within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the server copy of this order upon compliance of all formalities by the petitioner,
3 the appellate authority shall hear out and dispose of the appeal on merit.
With the above observation and direction, 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.