Chanchal Ray vs. Superintendent, Range Iii And Ors.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent authorities to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated July 18, 2022. This consideration must be in accordance with the law, involving the passing of a reasoned and speaking order. Crucially, the authorities are mandated to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or their authorized representative. The Court explicitly clarified that it had not examined the merits of the representation itself, leaving that entirely to the respondent authorities to decide strictly in accordance with law. The entire process is to be completed within two weeks from the date of communication of the order.

Facts

The petitioner, Chanchal Ray, filed a writ petition before the High Court aggrieved by an intimation order dated April 22, 2022. This order, issued by the Superintendent, Range III, Khardah Division, Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Kolkata North Commissionerate, directed the petitioner to pay a certain amount along with interest and penalty under the GST Act. The petitioner subsequently filed a representation on July 18, 2022, denying the demand. The respondent CGST authorities stated that no coercive action had been taken against the petitioner based on the intimation order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authorities are obligated to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated July 18, 2022, in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or their authorized representative? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner, by filing the writ petition and subsequently a representation, sought a proper adjudication of the demand raised by the respondent authorities. The petitioner implicitly argued for the right to have their representation heard and decided fairly. Revenue's Contention: The respondent CGST authorities acknowledged the intimation order and the petitioner's representation. They submitted that no coercive action had been taken, implying a willingness to allow the process to unfold through the representation mechanism. They did not explicitly argue against the need to consider the representation but rather focused on the current procedural status.