Dinesh Yadav vs. Goods And Services Tax Network And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Dinesh Yadav, filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking a direction upon the respondent authorities to consider his representation dated April 27, 2019. This representation was made to the Superintendent, CGST authority (respondent no. 2). The petitioner's prayer was for the authorities to address his representation. The respondents did not file affidavits in response to the writ petition. The matter was heard on January 27, 2022.
Held
The Court directed the respondent no. 2, the CGST authority, to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated April 27, 2019. This consideration must be done in accordance with the law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order. Furthermore, the petitioner or their authorized representative must be given an opportunity of hearing before the order is passed. The entire process is to be completed within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. Since the writ petition was disposed of without calling for affidavits, the allegations made in the petition are deemed to have been denied by the respondents. No specific amount in dispute or tax period was mentioned in the judgment.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondent no. 2 (CGST authority) should be directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated April 27, 2019, in accordance with law? The petitioner argued that a direction should be issued to the respondent authority to consider and pass a reasoned order on his representation. The respondent authorities, by not filing affidavits, implicitly did not contest the petitioner's prayer for consideration of his representation. No specific legal provisions were explicitly debated or relied upon by either party in the judgment text provided, beyond the general implication of administrative duty to consider representations.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2022. p.b. Sl. No.
W.P.A. 20741 of 2021 (Through Video Conference) Dinesh Yadav Vs. Goods and Services Tax Network & Ors. Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar, Mr. Avra Mazumder, Mr. K. Roy. ……..for the petitioner. Mr. B. P. Banerjee. ………for the respondent. Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner in Court today be kept with the record. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. Petitioner has made a very innocuous prayer in this writ petition seeking relief of direction upon the respondent concerned to consider its representation dated 27th April, 2019 made before the Superintendent/ respondent no.2 (CGST authority concerned) which appears at page 6 of the supplementary affidavit. Considering the submission of the parties, this writ petition being WPA No.20741 of 2021 is disposed of by directing the respondent no.2 to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 27th April, 2019 in accordance with law and by passing a reasoned and speaking order and after giving an opportunity of hearing
2 to the petitioner or its authorised representatives within four weeks from the date of communication of the order. Since the writ petition is disposed of without calling for affidavits from the respondents, the allegations contained in the writ petition shall be deemed to have been denied by the respondents. (Md. Nizamuddin, J.)
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.