Asish Ghosh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by granting the petitioner liberty to make an appropriate representation before the concerned authority, along with supporting documents, challenging the impugned recovery notice dated September 1, 2023. This representation must be filed within one week from the date of the order. If such a representation is filed, the authority is directed to consider and dispose of it in accordance with the law. This disposal must include passing a reasoned and speaking order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or their authorized representatives. The authority is to complete this process within four weeks from the date of receiving the representation. Any further recovery action will be contingent upon the final order passed on the petitioner's representation. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's claim of non-liability.

Facts

The petitioner, Asish Ghosh, filed a writ petition challenging a recovery notice dated September 1, 2023, issued under Section 79 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that they are not liable for the taxes mentioned in the notice. However, the petitioner admitted to not having filed any supporting documents with the respondent authority to substantiate this claim. The writ petition was heard by the High Court, with the petitioner represented by Mr. Asis Bhattacharyya and the CGST authorities by Mr. K. K. Maiti and Mr. Tapan Bhanja, and the Union of India by Mr. Surojit Roy Chowdhury and Mr. Prithu Dudhoria.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge the recovery notice dated September 1, 2023, under Section 79 of the CGST Act, 2017, without first submitting supporting documents to the respondent authority to demonstrate non-liability for the stated taxes. The petitioner argued that they are not liable for the taxes indicated in the recovery notice. The revenue's contention, implied by the need for the petitioner to submit documents, is that the petitioner must exhaust the available administrative remedies and provide evidence of their claim before the authority. The court had to decide if the petitioner's current stance, lacking supporting documentation, warranted immediate intervention by the High Court or if they should first approach the statutory authority.