Pranab Roy vs. Assistant Commissioner , CGST And Ors.
Held
The Court decided not to adjudicate the merits of the writ petition directly. Instead, it disposed of the writ petition by directing respondent No. 5 (presumably the Chairman, CGST, or an authority designated to act on his behalf) to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated November 16, 2022. This disposal must be done in accordance with the law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, and after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or their authorized representative. The Court set a timeline of four weeks from the communication of the order for this disposal. The ratio decidendi is that when an administrative remedy in the form of a representation is pending, the High Court may direct its expeditious and reasoned disposal rather than intervening directly, provided the representation addresses the core grievance.
Facts
The petitioner, Pranab Roy, filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging an unspecified order or action by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax, Bolpur Commissionerate. The petitioner had previously made a representation to the Chairman, CGST, on November 16, 2022, concerning the relief sought in the writ petition. This representation was pending at the time the writ petition was filed. The specific tax period(s) and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history primarily involves the petitioner's pending representation before the CGST Chairman.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should entertain the writ petition when a representation made by the petitioner to the Chairman, CGST, is still pending? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner likely argued that the pending representation warranted the Court's intervention or that the Court should direct the expeditious disposal of the representation. The petitioner relied on the fact that the representation was made on November 16, 2022, and was still pending. Revenue's Argument: The respondent, represented by Mr. Tapan Bhanja, did not explicitly record arguments. However, their presence and participation suggest they would have argued for the Court to direct the disposal of the pending representation rather than adjudicating the merits of the writ petition directly, given the pending administrative remedy.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2023 ks WPA 29055 of 2022 sl. 6 Pranab Roy Vs Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax, Bolpur Commissionerate, Durgapur-II Division, Range-II & Ors. Mr. Debanuj Basu Thakur … For the Petitioner. Mr. Tapan Bhanja … For the Respondent No.
Affidavit-of-service filed in court be kept with the record. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties. It appears from record that for the relief asked for in this writ petition, petitioner has made a representation before the Chairman, CGST on 16th November, 2022, being Annexure P-4 to the writ petition and which is still pending and considering such circumstances, this writ petition being WPA 29055 of 2022 is disposed of by directing the respondent No.5 to consider and dispose of the aforesaid representation dated 16th November, 2022, in accordance with law and by passing a reasoned and speaking order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorised representative, within a period of four weeks from the
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.