Kishore Kumar Kedia vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Held
The Court directed the respondent authority to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated June 10, 2022, in accordance with law. This disposal must be through a reasoned and speaking order, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorized representative, within eight weeks of the order's communication. The Court also instructed the respondent authority to initiate recovery proceedings against the partner/proprietor or the firm if it is still in existence, and if the adjudication order pertains to the relevant period, then against those who were the actual partners and proprietors at that time. No further coercive action is to be taken against the petitioner until the representation is disposed of, and any recovery action will be contingent on the outcome of that disposal. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Facts
The petitioner, Kishore Kumar Kedia, challenges the recovery of a demand from his bank account. The demand is based on an order dated October 1, 2008. The petitioner contends that he had retired from the partnership firm, M/s. Reliable Steel Industries, on April 7, 2005, and the adjudication order pertains to a period after his retirement. He has made several representations to the respondent authorities regarding this grievance, with the last one dated June 10, 2022. The petitioner states that these representations have not been considered or disposed of by the authorities.
Key Issues
1. Whether the recovery of a demand from the petitioner's bank account is justified when the adjudication order pertains to a period after the petitioner's retirement from the partnership firm. The petitioner argued that he retired from the firm M/s. Reliable Steel Industries on April 7, 2005, and the demand arises from an order dated October 1, 2008, which relates to a period when he was no longer a partner. He further contended that his representations against this action have been pending for a considerable time without disposal. The revenue's arguments are not explicitly recorded in the judgment. However, the court's directions imply that the revenue's action was based on the existing adjudication order and the need to recover the demand.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2022 ks WPA 24733 of 2022 sl. 23 Kishore Kumar Kedia Vs Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Arijit Chakraborti, Mr. Deep Sharma … For the Petitioner.
Mr. K.K. Maiti, Mr. Tapan Bhanja … For the CGST Authority.
Mr. Debasish Saha … For the SBI.
Mr. Sudipta Maiti … For the UOI.
Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned action of the respondents authority concerned making recovery of demand against the petitioner from his Bank Account on the basis of the order in original dated 1st October, 2008, on the ground that the transaction involved pertaining to the period when the petitioner had already retired from the Partnership Firm M/s. Reliable Steel Industries.
Petitioner submits that he had already retired on 7th April, 2005 and the adjudication order pertains to the period October, 2008. Petitioner submits that against such grievance, petitioner has already made several representations befor
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.