Raghu Bansha Maurya vs. Assistant Commissioner , Bally And Ors.
Held
The Court held that the order dated April 3, 2024, for the tax period August 2020, was vitiated on the ground of violation of statutory provisions, specifically Section 75(4) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The Court reasoned that Section 75(4) mandates that an opportunity of hearing must be given to a person before any adverse decision is contemplated against them, irrespective of whether a written request is received. Since it was admitted that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, the order passed by the proper officer was deemed invalid. The Court, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the proper officer for readjudication. The proper officer was directed to decide the show cause notice within sixteen weeks from the date of communication of the order, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Facts
The petitioner, Raghu Bansha Maurya, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated April 3, 2024, passed under Section 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, for the tax period August 2020. The petitioner contended that despite a show cause notice dated February 1, 2024, in Form GST DRC 01, no opportunity of hearing was provided, violating Section 75(4) of the Act. The State, represented by the learned Additional Government Pleader, acknowledged that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner. The petitioner approached the High Court within a reasonable period after the impugned order was passed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order passed by the proper officer under Section 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, dated April 3, 2024, for the tax period August 2020, is vitiated due to the failure to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in violation of Section 75(4) of the said Act? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the respondents were obliged to afford an opportunity of hearing, as mandated by Section 75(4) of the said Act, and that the failure to do so constitutes a violation of statutory provisions. Revenue's contention: The State acknowledged that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner in this case.
Sections Cited
Section 74, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
M/L 210 23.09.2024 sb Ct 5
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE
WPA 19798 of 2024
Raghu Bansha Maurya Versus The Assistant Commissioner Bally & Ors.
Mr. Abhijat Das
Ms. Aratrika Roy
... For the petitioner.
Mr. Anirban Ray, Ld. GP,
Mr. T. M. Siddiqui
Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty
Mr. Saptak Sanyal
Mr. D. Sahu
… For the State
Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record.
Challenging, inter alia, the order passed under Section 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) dated 3rd April, 2024, for the tax period August, 2020, the instant writ petition has been filed.
Mr. Das, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner by drawing attention of this Court to the show cause notice dated 1st February, 2024, issued in Form GST DRC 01, would submit that though the respondents were obliged to afford an opportunity of he
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.