Ardhendu Bikash Das vs. Joint Comm.Of CGST And Central Excise, Haldia Comm. And Ors
Facts
The petitioner, Ardhendu Bikash Das, filed a writ petition (WPA 4665 of 2023) before the High Court. The petitioner claimed that no demand notice was ever served upon him. The respondent, the Joint Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Haldia Commissionerate, presented records to counter this claim. These records indicated that the order in original was served upon the petitioner after multiple hearing notices, which the petitioner had duly received. The court noted that the petitioner had not approached the court with clean hands and had made an incorrect statement regarding the non-service of the demand notice.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands and had made suppression of facts and an incorrect statement regarding the service of the demand notice. The Court observed that the records produced by the respondent demonstrated that the order in original was served upon the petitioner after several notices of hearing, which were duly received. As the Court is a court of equity and requires litigants to approach with clean hands and fairness, the conduct of the petitioner led to the dismissal of the writ petition. No specific provisions of the CGST Act or Rules were discussed in relation to the substantive merits of the demand, as the dismissal was based on the petitioner's conduct.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner approached the Court with clean hands, considering the alleged suppression of facts and incorrect statements regarding the service of the demand notice. Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that no demand notice was served at any point of time. Revenue (Respondent): Contended that the petitioner had not come up with clean hands and had made suppression of facts and incorrect statements. They presented records showing that the order in original was served after several hearing notices, which were duly received by the petitioner.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2023. p.b. Sl. No.
WPA 4665 of 2023 Ardhendu Bikash Das Vs. Joint Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Haldia Commi- ssionerate & Ors. Mr. Sandip Choraria, Mr. R. Chatterjee. ……..for the petitioner. Mr. Shiv S. Banerjee, Ms. Manasi Mukherjee. ………for the respondent. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. Pursuant to the earlier order of this Court dated 20th March, 2023, by which learned advocate appearing for the respondent was asked to take appropriate instruction in the matter, Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate representing the CGST authority concerned has come up with records to establish that petitioner has not come up with clean hands and has made suppression of facts and incorrect statement that no demand notice in original was served at any point of time while the record shows that the order in original was served upon the petitioner after giving several notices of hearing which were duly received by the petitioner. This Court is a Court of equity and the litigant approaching the Court must come with clean hands and must be fair, because of the conduct of the petitioner
2 recorded hereinabove, this writ petition being WPA 4665 of 2023 is dismi
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.