Ajit Kumar Bothra vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Strand Road, Chinabazar And Rajakarta Charge And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Ajit Kumar Bothra, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated January 3, 2025, which rejected his appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017. The appeal pertained to the tax period April 2018 to March 2019. The petitioner also challenged the attachment of his bank account. The petitioner contended that he was not offered a personal hearing, despite the show cause notice dated September 12, 2023. The appellate order stated the petitioner failed to reply or avail the personal hearing. The appeal was dismissed on grounds of limitation without adjudication on merits. The petitioner had paid Rs. 1,10,757/- as pre-deposit and Rs. 18,79,96/- was recovered from him.
Held
The Court held that the order dated January 3, 2025, rejecting the petitioner's appeal, should be set aside and the matter remanded back to the appellate authority for adjudication on merits. The Court noted that the petitioner was not offered a personal hearing, which is a crucial procedural safeguard. The Court also considered that the appellate tribunal is yet to be constituted, making a remand to the existing appellate authority appropriate. The Court reasoned that the appellate authority is better equipped to examine electronic records available on the portal. Furthermore, considering the pre-deposit and recovery already made by the petitioner, and the scheme of the Act allowing appeals upon payment of 10% of the tax in dispute, the attachment of the petitioner's bank account, effected via order dated September 19, 2024, was deemed unsustainable and was set aside. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated January 3, 2025, rejecting the petitioner's appeal on grounds of limitation without adjudication on merits, is sustainable, considering the alleged denial of personal hearing and the scheme of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017, particularly Section 107. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the appellate order was erroneous as no personal hearing was granted, despite the show cause notice. He contended that the appeal was dismissed on limitation without addressing the merits of the case. He relied on the scheme of the Act which allows for appeals and further opportunities for registered tax payers. Revenue's arguments: The State argued that the petitioner failed to reply or avail the opportunity of personal hearing, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on limitation. The judgment does not explicitly record any further arguments from the State.
Sections Cited
Section 107, CGST/WBGST Act, 2017
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2025 Item No. AD 3 Saswata
WPA 1947 of 2025 Ajit Kumar Bothra versus Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. Mr. Akshat Agarwal …For the petitioner Mr. Anirban Ray, Ld.GP Mr. Md. T.M. Siddiqui, Sr. Adv. Mr. T.Chakraborty Mr. S. Sanyal Mr. D. Sahu ..For the State
Challenging the order dated 3rd January 2025 rejecting the appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) in respect of the tax period April 2018 to March 2019, the instant writ petition has been filed. The writ petition also questions the attachment of the petitioner’s bank account.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and noting the fact that no personal hearing was offered to the petitioner as reflected in the show cause notice dated 12th September 2023, though in the order dated 5th March 2024 it has been stated that the Registered Tax Payer had failed to give any reply or avail the opportunity of personal hearing and that the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of limitation without there being adjudication on merit, I am of the view that having regard to the scheme of the Act which permits the registered tax payer a further opportunity to challenge the adjudication order and since, the appellate tribunal is yet to be constituted, the matter should be remanded back to the appellate authority for its adjudication on merits.
Such direction is necessary since ordinarily for this Court to examine a challenge on merit, this Court would be required to go through the records which are, however, all available electronically on the portal and would be required
2 to be downloaded and placed before the Court, on the contrary the appellate authority is far more equipped to go through such records on the portal itself.
Having regard thereto, while setting aside the order dated 3rd January 2025, I remand the matter back to the appellate authority for a decision on merits.
Further, taking note of the fact that an amount of Rs.1,10,757/- has been paid by the petitioner towards pre- deposit and in addition thereto Rs.18,79,96/- has already been recovered from the petitioner and considering the scheme of the said Act which authorizes a RTP to maintain an appeal upon payment of 10 per cent of the amount of tax in dispute, I am of the view that the order of attachment of the petitioner’s bank account which has been effected vide order issued in form GST DRC – 13 dated 19th September 2024, cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside.
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.