M/S. Sree Biswakarma Scrap Processing Udyog And Anr. vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CGST And Cx And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sree Biswakarma Scrap Processing Udyog & Anr., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Calcutta. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities in blocking its Electronic Credit Ledger and subsequently recovering tax allegedly after such unblocking. The petitioner contends that such recovery is not permissible under the law. The petitioner had previously submitted a representation to the respondent authority, which was received on January 20, 2023. This representation was annexed to the writ petition. The court, without delving into the merits of the representation, issued directions to the respondent authority.

Held

The High Court of Calcutta, without adjudicating on the merits of the petitioner's representation or the legality of the actions taken by the respondent authorities, directed the respondent authority to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated January 20, 2023. This disposal must be in accordance with the law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, and after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The court specified that the petitioner would be entitled to raise all points raised in the writ petition during this hearing. The court also noted that since the writ petition was disposed of at the motion stage without calling for affidavits, the allegations in the petition are deemed to have been denied by the respondents. The court did not decide on the specific issue of the permissibility of blocking the ledger and subsequent recovery.

Key Issues

1. Whether the blocking of the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger and subsequent recovery of tax is permissible under the law, considering the petitioner's contention that recovery after unblocking is impermissible. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the blocking of the Electronic Credit Ledger and subsequent recovery of tax, particularly if recovery occurs after the ledger is unblocked, is not in accordance with the law. The petitioner relies on the principle that such actions must be legally tenable and adhere to due process. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the CGST Bolpur Commissionerate or the State respondents regarding the merits of the petitioner's grievance. The respondents were represented, but their submissions on the core issue of the legality of the ledger blocking and recovery are not detailed in the provided text.