Del Monte Foods Private Limited vs. The State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Held
The Court held that the order dated April 16, 2024, passed by the proper officer was liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of Section 75(4) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The reasoning was that the proper officer failed to provide an opportunity of a personal hearing to the petitioner, despite the petitioner opting for it. The ratio decidendi is that an adverse order passed without affording a statutory personal hearing violates principles of natural justice and is therefore unsustainable. Consequently, the Court set aside the order dated April 16, 2024, and the demand raised in Form DRC 07 dated April 16, 2024. The Court directed the proper officer to dispose of the show cause notice issued in Form DRC 01 dated November 8, 2023, after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner was also granted liberty to file additional documents. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Facts
The petitioner, Del Monte Foods Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated April 16, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. This order pertained to the tax period April 2018 to March 2019. The petitioner contended that despite opting for a personal hearing, as contemplated by the Act when an adverse order is likely, no such hearing was granted. The State-respondents, represented by the learned Government Pleader, acknowledged that the petitioner was indeed not offered a personal hearing.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated April 16, 2024, passed by the proper officer under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, is liable to be set aside for violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a personal hearing, as mandated by Section 75(4) of the said Act? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed in violation of the statutory requirement to provide a personal hearing, despite the petitioner having opted for one. This failure to grant a hearing rendered the order bad in law. Revenue/State's contention: The State-respondents, through the learned Government Pleader, acknowledged that the petitioner was not afforded a personal hearing.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
9th September, 2024 (AK) 74 …for the petitioner.
Mr. Anirban Ray Md. T.M. Siddiqui Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty Mr. S. Shaw Mr. N. Chatterjee …for the State.
Challenging, inter alia, an order dated 16th April, 2024 passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’), for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019, the instant writ petition has been filed.
Mr. Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that although the provisions of the said Act contemplate offering opportunity of personal hearing where an adverse order is contemplated, in the present case despite the petitioner opting for personal hearing no such hearing had been granted.
Mr. Ray, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State-respondents, would acknowledge the fact that the petitioner was not offered persona
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.