Kartik Pramanick vs. Union Of INDIA And Anr
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to file a reply to the impugned notice dated May 1, 2023, within two weeks from the date of the order, treating it as a show-cause notice. The respondent authority is directed to consider and dispose of this reply in accordance with the law, passing a reasoned and speaking order. This consideration must include the judgments relied upon by the petitioner and an opportunity of hearing. This entire process is to be completed within four weeks from the date of filing the reply. No coercive steps are to be taken against the petitioner based on the impugned order until the disposal of the reply. The order will cease to have effect if the petitioner fails to file the reply within the stipulated time.
Facts
The petitioner, Kartik Pramanick, has challenged two impugned notices dated April 20, 2023, and May 1, 2023, issued by the CGST authorities. These notices were issued for initiating recovery proceedings for a demand. The petitioner contends that these notices were issued without a prior show-cause notice, relying on decisions from the Karnataka High Court. The department has not taken further steps for approximately seven months since the notices were issued.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned notices dated April 20, 2023, and May 1, 2023, initiating recovery proceedings are invalid for having been issued without a prior show-cause notice, as contended by the petitioner, relying on the Karnataka High Court's decisions in LC Infra Projects (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India and its subsequent confirmation in Writ Appeal No. 188 of 2020? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argues that the notices for recovery were issued without adhering to the mandatory procedure of issuing a show-cause notice, rendering them illegal. They cite the Karnataka High Court's judgments as precedent supporting this procedural requirement. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the CGST authorities.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
WPA 22291 OF 2023 16.11.2023
Sl no. 11
Kartik Pramanick. Ct no. 2
- Vs - P.M. Union of India & Anr.
Mr. Promit Majumdar Ms. Suspita Banerjee, Ms. Sukanya Dutta
… for the petitioner
Mr. K. K. Maiti,
Ms. Tapan Bhanja
.... for CGST authorities.
Heard learned advocates appearing or the parties. By this writ petition petitioner has challenged the impugned notices dated 20th April, 2023 and 1st May, 2023 intimating the petitioner for initiating proceeding for recovery of the demand in question, on the ground that the same have been issued without issuing any show-cause notice and in support of such contention petitioner relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court dated 22nd July, 2019 in the case of LC Infra Projects (P) Ltd. – vs – Union of India reported in (2019) 109 taxmann.com 141 ( Karnataka) and unreported decision of the Division Bench of the same Court dated 3rd March, 2020 passed in Writ Appeal No. 188 of 2020 (T-RES) confirming the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble Single Bench.
2 Since
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.