Narendra Kumar Bothra vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Bowbazar Charge And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Narendra Kumar Bothra, challenged an order of demand in Form DRC-07 dated August 7, 2024, and an order under Section 73 of the WBGST & CGST Act, 2017, for the tax period April 2019 to March 2020. The petitioner contended that the Proper Officer did not properly consider their case, and the dates for personal hearing and offering a response were the same, April 12, 2024. The impugned order was passed on August 7, 2024, along with the demand notice. The State was represented by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bowbazar Charge, and others.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner's contention regarding the improper consideration of their case and the overlapping dates for personal hearing and response did not warrant entertaining a writ petition. The Court noted that a show-cause notice was issued under Section 73 of the WBGST & CGST Act, 2017, in accordance with the adjudicatory scheme, following an audit under Section 65(7). Despite being afforded opportunities for hearing and response, the petitioner did not avail the personal hearing. The Court emphasized the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy through the multi-tier appellate process provided by the Act. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. However, to prevent the petitioner from being remediless, the Court granted liberty to approach the Appellate Authority within four weeks, with an application for condonation of delay. The Appellate Authority was directed to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits, subject to the petitioner complying with all formalities.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Proper Officer properly considered the petitioner's case, particularly concerning the dates of personal hearing and response, and if the impugned order dated August 7, 2024, was validly passed. (Mixed question of law and fact, relating to principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the WBGST & CGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's contentions: The Proper Officer failed to properly consider the petitioner's case. The personal hearing and the date for offering a response were scheduled for the same day, April 12, 2024, which prejudiced the petitioner's ability to present their case effectively. The subsequent demand order dated August 7, 2024, was therefore flawed. Revenue's contentions: The revenue argued that a show-cause notice was issued under Section 73 of the said Act, following an audit under Section 65(7). The petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing and to respond to the show-cause notice, but they did not avail the personal hearing. The court noted the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy in the form of an appeal.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 65(7)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
order of demand raised by the respondents in Form DRC-07 dated August 7, 2024 and the order under Section 73 of the WBGST & CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) for the tax period of April 2019 to March 2020, the instant writ petition has been filed.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Proper Officer has not properly considered the petitioner’s case and the date of personal hearing and the date of offering response were on the same date, i.e., on April 12, 2024. It is submitted that on August 7, 2024, an order has been passed along with the demand notice in form DRC-07. 3. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and noting that a show-cause notice was issued
2 under Section 73 of the said Act, in tune with the adjudicatory scheme provided for in the said Act, following an audit, under the provisions of Section 65(7) of the said Act, and despite the petitioner having been afforded with an opportunity of hearing and the opportunity to respond to the show-cause, and the petitioner having not availed the opportunity of personal hearing, I am of the view that there is no scope to entertain writ petition, especially having regard to the efficacious alternative remedy available in the form of an appeal in the multi-tier adjudicatory process provided for in the scheme of the said Act. The writ petition fails.
However, at the same time, the petitioner cannot be rendered remediless. As such in the event the petitioner approaches the Appellate Authority within four weeks from date by filing an appropriate application for condonation of delay, the Appellate Authority having regard to the pendency of the instant case and observations made herein shall hear out and dispose of the appeal on merits subject to the petitioner complying with all other formalities.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition being WPA 27197 of 2024 is dismissed without any order as to costs.
(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.