M/S Hmb Ispat PVT. LTD vs. The Principal Commisioner, CGST And Central Excise, Kolkata North Commissionerate And Ors
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. HMB Ispat Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging an unspecified order or action by the revenue authorities. The petitioner had previously submitted a representation to the respondent authority on December 14, 2023, concerning the grievance raised in the writ petition. This representation was still pending at the time the writ petition was filed. The amount in dispute and the specific tax period(s) are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history relevant to the High Court's decision is that the petitioner's representation was pending before the respondent authority.
Held
The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's grievance or the representation. Instead, it disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent authority to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated December 14, 2023. The disposal is to be done in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, and after providing an opportunity to the petitioner or its authorized representatives. The respondent authority is mandated to pass this order within two weeks from the date of communication of the High Court's order. The ratio decidendi is that when a statutory representation is pending before an authority, the High Court may direct the authority to decide it expeditiously rather than adjudicating the underlying issue itself in the first instance, provided no prejudice is caused.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should entertain the writ petition when the petitioner's representation before the respondent authority is still pending? The petitioner argued that they had filed a representation on December 14, 2023, which was pending before the respondent authority. The revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata North Commissionerate & Ors., did not explicitly argue on the merits of the case but was present before the court. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or the merits of the petitioner's grievance.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2024. PB Sl. No.
WPA 803 of 2024 M/s. HMB Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Principal Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata North Commissionerate & Ors. Mr. Satyaprem Majumder, Mr. Pradyot Kr. Das. … For the Petitioner. Mr. U. S. Bhattacharyya, Ms. Ekta Sinha …….for the CGST. Mr. Amit Sharma. …….for the UOI. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. It appears from record annexed to the writ petition that against the grievance raised in this writ petition, the petitioner has already made a representation before the respondent authority concerned on 14th December, 2023 being Annexure P- 6 to the writ petition and which is still pending. Without going into the merit of the aforesaid representation, this writ petition being WPA 803 of 2024 is disposed of by directing the respondent authority concerned to consider and dispose of the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 14th December, 2023, in accordance with law and by 2 passing a reasoned and speaking order after giving opportunity to the petitioner or its authorized representatives, within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of this or
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.