Yash Kedia Proprietor Of M/S Y And K Company vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax

Held

The High Court allowed the appeal in part and disposed of both the writ petition and the appeal. The Court found it unnecessary to delve into the controversy of whether documents were submitted or received. Instead, it granted the appellant one more opportunity to submit all relevant documents. The order dated 23.03.2022 passed under Section 74(9) of the WBGST Act, 2017 read with CGST Act, 2017 was treated as an additional show cause notice. The appellant was directed to file a reply with all documents within two weeks. The concerned authority was then directed to provide a personal hearing and pass a reasoned order on merits within five weeks of the hearing's conclusion. The Court explicitly stated it had not considered the merits of the matter and that the appellant could raise all factual and legal grounds before the authority. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration, and no coercive action was to be initiated against the appellant.

Facts

The appellant, Yash Kedia, proprietor of M/s. Y And K Company, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 23.03.2022 passed under Section 74(9) of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017. The appellant contended that the authority's finding that the appellant neither appeared nor filed a reply was factually incorrect, presenting a letter dated 17.09.2021 as evidence of their response to a prior memo and an attempt to submit documents. The learned Single Judge, however, deemed the order appellable and declined to interfere, directing the appellant to deposit 10% of the demand to prevent coercive action. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed the present intra-court appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the order dated 23.03.2022 passed under Section 74(9) of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017 is an appellable order, thereby declining to entertain the writ petition on merits, contrary to the principles of natural justice? Petitioner's Arguments: The appellant argued that the authority's conclusion that no reply was filed was factually incorrect. They submitted a letter dated 17.09.2021, acknowledged by the State Commissioner's office, indicating their attempt to provide bank statements and ledger details in response to a memo dated 06.09.2021. They contended that their right to natural justice was violated as their response was disregarded. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the revenue or State in response to the appellant's contention regarding the factual inaccuracy of the authority's finding or the applicability of the appellable order doctrine in this context.