Shailesh Kumar Gupta vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Chandni Chawk And Princep Street Charge And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated April 23, 2024, is an appealable order. Consequently, the petitioner possesses an efficacious alternative remedy in the form of an appeal. The Court found that the petitioner did not approach the High Court immediately after the passing of the order, having waited for over three months. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to question the order on the ground of violation of Section 75(4) by invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The Court observed that if the petitioner was eager to enforce his rights via writ, he ought to have approached the Court immediately after the order was passed. However, to prevent the petitioner from being rendered remediless, given that the time to file an appeal had expired during the pendency of the writ petition, the Court permitted the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. The appellate authority was directed to hear and dispose of the appeal expeditiously, preferably within 12 weeks from the date of filing, subject to the petitioner filing the appeal within three weeks from the date of the order and complying with other formalities. The issue of whether Section 75(4) was indeed violated was not expressly decided, as the petition was disposed of on the ground of alternative remedy and delay.

Facts

The petitioner, Sailesh Kumar Gupta, is aggrieved by an adjudication order dated April 23, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (WBGST Act) / Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). A show cause notice was issued on December 28, 2023, to which the petitioner had responded. The petitioner contends that the adjudication order was passed without providing an opportunity of hearing, in violation of Section 75(4) of the said Act. The writ petition was filed on July 31, 2024, more than three months after the adjudication order was passed. The petitioner argued that the writ petition was filed within the outer time limit for filing an appeal, but the Court noted the impugned order was appealable.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal against the adjudication order dated April 23, 2024, under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, thereby precluding the invocation of writ jurisdiction? (Question of law) 2. Whether the petitioner, having delayed approaching the High Court for over three months after the passing of the adjudication order, can invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction to question the order on grounds of procedural violation, specifically the alleged denial of an opportunity of hearing under Section 75(4) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the writ petition was filed within the outer time limit for filing an appeal. The primary grievance is the violation of Section 75(4) of the said Act due to the denial of an opportunity of hearing. Revenue/State's contentions: The judgment records that the learned advocates for the State appeared. No specific arguments for the State are recorded in the provided text.