Besco Limited (Wagon Division & Anr vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors
Held
The Court held that the respondent authority, the Assistant Commissioner of CGST and CX, had a duty to consider and dispose of the petitioners' representation dated November 16, 2018. The Court found that the authority had not yet done so. The reasoning was based on the petitioners' submission that their representation was pending and unaddressed. The ratio decidendi is that statutory authorities must act upon representations filed by assessees in accordance with law. The operative direction was to dispose of the petitioners’ representation dated November 16, 2018, in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners or their authorized representative, within six weeks from the date of communication of the order. The petitioners were permitted to raise all points from the writ petition before the authority.
Facts
The petitioners, BESCO Limited (Wagon Division), have challenged a notice dated August 20, 2018, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of CGST & CX, Bishnupur Division, Kolkata. This notice was issued under Section 11(2)(i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In response, the petitioners filed an objection on September 6, 2018, and a more detailed representation on November 16, 2018. The petitioners contend that the respondent authority has failed to dispose of their representation and objections. The writ petition was filed seeking a direction for the disposal of these representations.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondent authority has failed to discharge its statutory duty by not disposing of the petitioners' representation dated November 16, 2018, in response to the notice dated August 20, 2018, issued under Section 11(2)(i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners argued that the respondent authority was sitting on their detailed representation and objections, failing to provide a reasoned and speaking order, thereby causing prejudice. They sought a direction for the disposal of their representation. Revenue's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or the Union of India. The matter was disposed of at the motion stage without calling for affidavits.
Sections Cited
Section 11(2)(i)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
08-02-2022 Item No.18 Subrata IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side WPA No.2418 of 2019 BESCO Limited (Wagon Division), (Unit No.II) & Anr. -vs- Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Jishnu Saha Mr. Dhirendranath Sharma Mr. Sushovit Dutt Majumder Ms. Mini Agarwal …for the petitioners Mr. Uday Shankar Bhattacharya …for CGST & CE Mr. Tapan Bhanja …for the Union of India Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties.
In this writ petition, petitioners have challenged the impugned notice dated August 20, 2018 (Annexure P10, p.162) issued by the Assistant Commissioner of CGST & CX, Bishnupur Division, Kolkata South Commissionerate, Kolkata under section 11(2)(i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944; and in response to the said impugned notice, petitioners have filed an objection on September 6, 2018 being Annexure P13, p.166 to the writ petition. Thereafter, petitioners have made another detailed objection/representation against the aforesaid impugned notice on November 16, 2018 (Annexure P20, p.178).
It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent authority concerned is sitting tight over the
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.