Madhuri Singh vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Held

The Court held that while the appellant was technically precluded from challenging the demand without first challenging the adjudication order, some indulgence could be granted considering the appellant's status as an individual engaged in a small works contract business. The Court directed the appellant to pay Rs. 5 lakhs by 22.12.2023 and another Rs. 5 lakhs by 19.1.2024. If these payments were made within the stipulated time, the appellant would be at liberty to file an application before the appropriate authority under Section 80 of the CGST/WBGST Act seeking payment of the remaining amount in reasonable installments. The Court clarified that failure to comply with any installment would result in the appeal being automatically dismissed without further reference to the court. The correctness of the demand itself, arising from the adjudication order, was not decided.

Facts

The appellant, Madhuri Singh, challenged a bank attachment notice issued by the department for the recovery of excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed and interest thereon. The appellant had filed a writ petition before the learned Single Bench, which was dismissed. The Single Bench held that since the adjudication order was not challenged, the appellant was precluded from filing a writ petition against the bank attachment notice. The appellant sought condonation of a 14-day delay in filing the present appeal, which was allowed by the High Court. The High Court acknowledged that the appellant could not challenge the demand without first challenging the adjudication order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellant is precluded from filing a writ petition challenging the bank attachment notice/demand notice when the adjudication order has not been challenged, as per Section 80 of the CGST/WBGST Act. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that despite not challenging the adjudication order, they should be granted some indulgence due to being an individual engaged in small works contract business. They sought a lenient approach from the authorities. Revenue's Argument: The State, represented by the revenue authorities, argued that the appellant was precluded from canvassing the correctness of the demand without challenging the order of adjudication. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue beyond this implicit contention.