Pdp International PVT. LTD. vs. Joint Commissioner Of CGST And Cx, Kolkata North Commissionerate And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, PDP International Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., challenged an order in original dated April 29, 2024, passed by the Proper Officer under Section 73(9) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, concerning tax periods from 2018-2019 to 2021-2022. The petitioner contended that the Proper Officer determined the tax liability without affording an appropriate opportunity of hearing, thus violating principles of natural justice. The revenue, Union of India & Ors., was the respondent. A show-cause notice was issued on December 27, 2023. The petitioner failed to respond within the stipulated time. Subsequently, opportunities for personal hearing were provided, with the petitioner appearing on February 29, 2024, and seeking time to file a written submission, which was granted. The petitioner's response was considered before the impugned order was passed. The writ petition was filed on August 23, 2024, which the Court noted was beyond the ordinary period of limitation.
Held
The Court held that while the petitioner raised a contention regarding the violation of principles of natural justice, the writ petition was filed significantly beyond the ordinary period of limitation. Considering the multi-tier adjudicatory process available under the GST Act, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition directly. However, to ensure the petitioner was not left without a remedy, the Court permitted the petitioner to file an appeal within four weeks from the date of the order. The Appellate Authority was directed to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits, taking into account the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court and the observations made in the order, subject to the petitioner complying with other formalities and filing an application for condonation of delay. The issue of violation of natural justice was not directly decided on merits but was addressed through the direction to file an appeal.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Proper Officer violated the principles of natural justice by determining the tax liability without affording an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as contended by the petitioner under Section 73 of the said Act? 2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable given that it was filed beyond the ordinary period of limitation, as observed by the Court? The petitioner argued that the Proper Officer failed to provide an adequate opportunity for hearing, leading to a violation of natural justice principles. The revenue did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment regarding this point. The Court also noted the delay in filing the writ petition, suggesting it was filed much beyond the ordinary period of limitation.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 73(9)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
19.05.2025 (M/L) Court No.05. (Pritam) WPA 21594 of 2024
PDP International Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
-Vs.-
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Sanjoy Bhowmick,
Mr. Purnendu Sekhar Bhadra.
...for the petitioner.
Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Adv., Mr. Kaustav Kanti Maity, Mr. Dhirodatto Chaudhuri.
...for the respondent.
Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Adv., Mr. Aayush Sharma.
....for the UoI.
Challenging the order in original dated April 29, 2024 passed by under Section 73(9) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) in respect of the tax period 2018-2019 to 2021-2022, the instant writ petition has been filed. Learned advocate for the petitioners would submit that the Proper Officer without affording appropriate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners has determined the show-cause. He contends of violation of principles of natural justice.
Having heard the respective parties, I find that a show- cause notice dated December 27, 2023 was issued under Section 73 of the said Act in respect of tax period 2018- 2019 to 2021-2022. The petitioners did not respond to the show-cause within the time specified. Subsequently, the
2 petitioners were afforded with an opportunity of personal hearing on February 22, 2024 by notice in writing dated February 13, 2024, the petitioners failed to appear on the said date. Subsequently, a further notice was issued on February 26, 2024 and the hearing was fixed on February 29, 2024 when a representative of the petitioners had appeared and sought for time for filing of the written submission and reply. Records would reveal that the Proper Officer had acceded to the request of the petitioners and had permitted the petitioners to file their response. The response was taken on record and was duly considered by the Proper Officer. Even after the order impugned was passed on April 29, 2024, the petitioners did not immediately challenge the same. The instant writ petition has been filed on August 23, 2024 much beyond the ordinary period of limitation. Considering the multi-tier adjudicatory process provided for in the scheme of the said Act, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, at the same time, it must be noted that the petitioners cannot be rendered remediless. On the prayer of the learned advocate for the petitioners, in the event the petitioners prefer an appeal within four weeks from date, the Appellate Authority having regard to the pendency of the instant case before this Court and the observations made herein shall hear out and disposed of the appeal on merits subject to compliance of other formalities by the
3 petitioners and upon filing an application for condonation of delay.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition being WPA 21594 of 2024 is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties upon all formalities, if applied for.
(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.