Biswajit Kundu vs. Superintendent Of Central Tax, Ii, Shibpur Division, Howrah Commissionerate And Ors.
Facts
The petitioner, Biswajit Kundu, has filed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order dated October 16, 2023, passed by the Superintendent of Central Tax, Range-II, Shibpur Division, Howrah Commissionerate. The petitioner contends that the adjudicating authority failed to properly consider and address the two replies submitted to the show-cause notices dated January 30, 2023, and August 7, 2023. The petitioner argues that the order was not passed in accordance with the law. The respondents include the Superintendent of Central Tax, the Union of India, and the State.
Held
The Court held that it cannot act as an appellate authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to review an order that is appealable under the statute and has been passed after providing an opportunity of personal hearing and recording elaborate reasons on merit. Therefore, the writ petition was not entertained for substantive relief. The Court directed that the petitioner be granted liberty to file a statutory appeal before the appellate authority within two weeks. The appellate authority was directed not to raise the point of limitation if the appeal is filed within the stipulated time and to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law and on merit, keeping all points raised in the writ petition open for consideration.
Key Issues
1. Whether the adjudicating authority properly considered and dealt with the petitioner's replies to the show-cause notices dated January 30, 2023, and August 7, 2023, as required by law? (Question of law and fact) 2. Whether the impugned adjudication order dated October 16, 2023, was passed in accordance with the relevant provisions of the CGST Act? (Question of law) Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the adjudicating authority did not properly discuss and deal with the two replies submitted in response to the show-cause notices and that the order was not passed in accordance with law. Revenue/State's contentions: The judgment records that the impugned order is an appealable order under the statute, was passed after giving an opportunity of personal hearing, and recorded elaborate reasons on merit. The Court did not record specific arguments from the revenue or State beyond these observations.
Sections Cited
CGST Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2024 Range-II, Shibpur Division, Howrah Commissionerate & Ors. Mr. J. Khan, Mr. B. Sengupta. … For the Petitioner. Mr. A. Ray, Mr. S. Mukherjee, Mr. D. Sahu. ……for the State. Mr. B. P. Banerjee, Mr. Abhradip Maity. …….for the CGST & CX. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharyya, Mr. P. K. Bhowmik. …….for the UOI. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned adjudication order dated 16th October, 2023, passed under the relevant provisions of the CGST Act. Petitioner submits that while passing the impugned order, the respondent adjudicating authority had not properly discussed and dealt with the two replies to the impugned show-cause notice dated 30th January, 2023 and 7th August, 2023 and petitioner further submits that the adjudicating
2 authority has not passed the order in accordance with law. Since the aforesaid impugned order is an appellable order under the statute and this order has been passed after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and by recording elaborate reas
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.