Surajit Adhikary vs. Superintendent Range Iii Of Barrackpore Division Kolkta North Commissionerate And Ors

Held

The Court held that even if the petitioner's representation was not liable to be considered under the law, the respondent authority should have disposed of it by communicating the reasons for not considering the representation. The Court reasoned that authorities cannot remain passive and must respond to representations made to them. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the concerned authority to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated January 15, 2020, strictly in accordance with law, within eight weeks from the date of communication of the order. The Court explicitly clarified that it had not gone into the merits of the petitioner's representation, and the respondent authority was to act in accordance with law while considering it.

Facts

The petitioner, Surajit Adhikary, filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court aggrieved by the non-disposal of his representation dated January 15, 2020. The representation pertained to a short payment of service tax. The petitioner contended that the authority concerned had not acted upon his representation, which had been pending since January 15, 2020. The respondent authority, represented by CGST, argued that the petitioner was not eligible to make the claim in his representation, and therefore, it was not liable to be considered. The High Court noted that even if the representation was not legally tenable, the authority should have communicated the reasons for its non-consideration rather than remaining silent.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authority was obligated to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated January 15, 2020, relating to short payment of service tax, even if the petitioner's claim was considered ineligible under the law? (Question of law). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that his representation had been pending for an unreasonable period and that the authority had failed to dispose of it. Revenue's contention: The respondent CGST authority argued that the petitioner was not eligible to make the claim in his representation, implying it was not liable for consideration. The judgment does not record any specific statutory provisions or precedents relied upon by either party.