Bharat Paswan vs. Superintendent, Jorabagan, Kolkata North CGST And Cx Commissionerate And Ors

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing Respondent No. 2, the Principal Commissioner, CGST, Kolkata (North), to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated August 3, 2022. The disposal must be in accordance with the law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order. Crucially, the Court mandated that an opportunity of hearing be provided to the petitioner or their authorized representatives before making a decision. This direction is to be complied with within two weeks from the date of communication of the order. The Court did not delve into the merits of the bank account attachment itself but focused on ensuring the petitioner's representation was duly processed.

Facts

The petitioner, Bharat Paswan, filed a writ petition before the High Court aggrieved by the coercive action of the respondent CGST authorities attaching his bank account. The petitioner contended that he was not provided with a copy of the order or the reasons for the attachment. He had made a representation on August 3, 2022, before the Principal Commissioner, CGST, Kolkata (North), which he claimed had not been considered, causing him significant inconvenience in conducting his business. The respondent CGST authorities were represented, and arguments were heard from both sides.

Key Issues

1. Whether the attachment of the petitioner's bank account by the CGST authorities was lawful, considering the petitioner was not provided with a copy of the order and the reasons for such action? 2. Whether the respondent CGST authorities failed to consider the petitioner's representation dated August 3, 2022, thereby causing prejudice to the petitioner? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the attachment of his bank account was arbitrary and illegal as he was not furnished with the order or the grounds for the action, violating principles of natural justice. He further contended that his representation seeking redressal remained unaddressed, causing business hardship. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments presented by the revenue or CGST authorities regarding the legality of the attachment or the non-consideration of the representation.