Kuntal Tarafdar vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Balurghat Charge And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Kuntal Tarafdar, is aggrieved by an order dated March 23, 2023, passed under Section 73 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017, concerning the tax period July 2017 to March 2018. An appeal was filed under Section 107 of the Act, along with a pre-deposit of Rs. 40,282/-. The petitioner contends that the appellate authority denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing, as required by Section 107(8) of the Act. The matter was listed for hearing on November 22, 2023, at 11:30 AM. The petitioner alleges that while the order indicated three adjournments on that date, these were effectively on the same day, preventing the petitioner from being represented.
Held
The Court held that the appellate authority's action of adjourning the matter multiple times on the same date (November 22, 2023) without communicating these successive adjournments to the petitioner, who was absent at the initial hearing time, prevented the petitioner from appearing. The Court found that the appellate authority had an obligation to communicate any adjournments. In the absence of such communication, the petitioner was effectively prevented from appearing at the subsequent adjourned times (1:00 PM, 3:00 PM, and 5:00 PM). Consequently, the ex parte decision made by the appellate authority could not be sustained. The Court set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the appellate authority for fresh consideration by an officer other than the one who passed the original order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appellate authority denied the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing, in contravention of Section 107(8) of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that the appellate authority failed to provide a proper hearing, citing the manner in which adjournments were recorded on the same date, effectively preventing their appearance. The State, through the learned Additional Government Pleader, submitted that the order could not be supported, implying agreement with the petitioner's grievance regarding the procedural fairness.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 107, Section 107(8)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
M/L 50 04.09.2024 sb Ct 5
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURI ICTION APPELLATE SIDE
WPA 17663 of 2024
Kuntal Tarafdar Versus Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.
Mr. Sandip Choraria
… For the petitioner.
Mr. Anirban Ray, Ld.GP
Mr. T. M. Siddiqui
Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty
Mr. D. Sahu
… For the State.
Being aggrieved by the order dated 23rd March, 2023 passed under Section 73 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) in respect of the tax period July, 2017 to March, 2018, an appeal had been filed under Section 107 of the said Act.
Mr. Choraria, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit simultaneously with the filing of the appeal the petitioner had made a pre-deposit of Rs.40,282/- as was required for maintaining the appeal. By referring to the provisions of Section 107(8) of the said Act he submits that the appellate authority was bound to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner prior to disposal of the appeal. In this case the appellate
2 authority has, in fact, denied the reasonable opportunity to the petitioner of being represented. He submits that although the matter was fixed for hearing on 22nd November, 2023 at 11.30 A.M. on a perusal of the aforesaid order it would reveal that three several adjournments have been granted. But on a closer scrutiny, it would reveal that the three adjournments were on the same date itself. He submits that in the facts as noted hereinabove, the petitioner had been denied opportunity of hearing. The aforesaid cannot be sustained and the matter should be remanded back to the appellate authority.
Mr. Siddiqui, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State respondents submits that the order cannot be supported.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considering the materials on record, I find that the appellate authority on 22nd November, 2023 had taken up the matter for consideration. Since, none appeared on behalf of the appellant/petitioner he had adjourned the matter suo motu and fixed the hearing at 1.00 p.m., again on 3.00 p.m. and thereafter 5.00 p.m. and had ultimately decided the matter ex parte. In this case, I may note if, the
3 appellate authority had considered it fit to adjourn the matter, it was the obligation of the appellate authority to communicate the factum of such adjournment to the petitioner when none was present on behalf of the appellant/petitioner on 22nd November, 2023 at 11.30 a.m. In absence of any notice of the successive adjournments on the same date, the petitioner in my view was prevented from appearing before the appellate authority on the adjourned time at 1.00 p.m., again at 3.00 p.m. and thereafter at 5.00 p.m. Having regard thereto, I am of the view that the aforesaid order cannot be sustained and the same is set aside.
The matter is remanded back to the appellate authority. It is made clear that the matter should be dealt with by any other authority apart from the officer concerned, who had dealt the matter.
With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities.
(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.