Shyamal Kar vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable because the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy in the form of an appeal. The Court noted that deciding the issues involved would require delving into factual aspects, which is not the primary function of a writ court when an appeal mechanism exists. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioner to exhaust the alternative remedy. The Court permitted the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority within four weeks from the date of the order, notwithstanding the dismissal of the writ petition. The Appellate Authority was directed to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits expeditiously, preferably within twelve weeks from the date of filing, subject to the petitioner complying with other formalities.
Facts
The petitioner, Shyamal Kar, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated May 22, 2024, passed under Section 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. This order pertained to the tax period December 2017 to January 2018. The petitioner contended that the proper officer failed to consider their response to the show cause notice before making the determination, thereby vitiating the order. The petitioner sought to have the order set aside and the matter remanded for re-adjudication.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal is available under the said Act, as argued by the State-respondents. 2. Whether the impugned order passed under Section 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, is vitiated due to the alleged non-consideration of the petitioner's response to the show cause notice, as argued by the petitioner. Contentions: Petitioner: The proper officer did not duly consider the petitioner's response to the show cause notice, leading to a vitiated determination. The court should set aside the order and remand the matter for re-adjudication. State-respondents: The petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy in the form of an appeal and the writ petition should not be entertained at this stage.
Sections Cited
Section 74, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
24th September, 2024 (AK) 246 …for the petitioner.
Mr. Anirban Ray Md. T.M. Siddqui Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty Mr. Saptak Sanyal …for the State.
Affidavit-of-service filed in court today be kept on record.
Challenging an order passed under Section 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’) dated 22nd May, 2024 in respect of the tax period December 2017 to January 2018 the instant writ petition has been filed.
Ms. Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, by placing before this court the show cause notice, the response filed by the petitioner and the order impugned would submit that the proper officer without due consideration of the petitioner’s response had rejected petitioner’s contention and made the determination. The aforesaid order stands vitiated on such ground. She submits that this court may be pleased to set aside
2
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.