Prasenjit Banerjee vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax And Ors.
Held
The Court dismissed the writ petition on two primary grounds. Firstly, it found the delay of approximately two years and eight months in filing the writ petition to be inordinate and unexplained, which is a significant factor in exercising writ jurisdiction. Secondly, the Court held that the petitioner had deliberately suppressed material facts, including the passing of an adjudication order against him and the subsequent filing of an appeal before the appellate authority. The Court noted that the petitioner approached the writ court after these significant developments, without disclosing them. This conduct demonstrated a lack of clean hands, which is a prerequisite for seeking equitable relief under writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the petition was dismissed on the grounds of both delay and suppression of material facts.
Facts
The petitioner, Prasenjit Banerjee, challenged a provisional attachment order dated January 17, 2020, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Haldia Commissionerate. The writ petition was filed on September 13, 2023, approximately two years and eight months after the order was passed. The petitioner did not provide any explanation for this delay. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to disclose that an adjudication order had already been passed against him on February 15, 2023, and that he had subsequently filed an appeal against this adjudication order before the Appellate Authority on August 10, 2023. This suppression of material facts was brought to the Court's attention by the respondents.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the inordinate delay of approximately two years and eight months in approaching the Court, without any explanation for the delay? 2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable on the grounds of willful and deliberate suppression of material facts, specifically the existence of an adjudication order and the subsequent filing of an appeal against it? The petitioner argued that the provisional attachment order was illegal and sought its quashing. The respondents contended that the writ petition suffered from gross delay and suppression of material facts, rendering it liable for dismissal. They highlighted that an adjudication order had been passed and an appeal was pending, making the writ petition an attempt to circumvent the statutory appellate process.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
WPA 22342 OF 2023 21.09.2023
Sl no. 7
Prasenjit Banerjee Ct no. 2
- Vs - P.M.
The Assistant Commissioner of
Central Tax, Haldia Commissioner,
Jangalpur CGST & CX Division & Ors.
Mr. Prasenjit Barman
… for the petitioner Mr. Shib Shankar Banerjee, Ms. Airshwarya Rajyashree
… for respondent CGST authority
Ms. Smita Das De
... for Union of India.
Petitioner has challenged the impugned provisional attachment order passed by the CGST authority concerned on 17th January, 2020 by filing this writ petition on 13th September, 2023 that is after two years eight months from the date of passing of such impugned attachment order and petitioner has not uttered a word in the writ petition explaining the delay of two years eight months in approaching this writ Court.
Petitioner has also not come up with clean hands and suppressed the material fact before this writ Court that against the petitioner already an adjudication order has been passed on 15th February, 2023 and petitioner has challenged the said adjudication order by
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.