M/A Chanchal Banerjee vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise And Anr

Held

The Court held that the Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Bankura Division (respondent No. 1) must consider and dispose of the petitioners' representation dated November 9, 2020. The Court directed that the representation be considered in accordance with law, and a reasoned and speaking order be passed. This decision must be made after providing the petitioners or their authorized representative an opportunity of hearing. The respondent No. 1 is required to communicate their decision to the petitioners within one week of passing the order. The ratio decidendi is that administrative authorities must act upon representations filed by taxpayers within a reasonable time and in accordance with law, providing an opportunity for hearing. The operative direction is to dispose of the representation within six weeks from the communication of the order and communicate the decision within one week thereafter. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s. Chanchal Banerjee & Anr., are aggrieved by the non-consideration and inaction of their representation dated November 9, 2020. This representation was submitted to the Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Bankura Division (respondent No. 1). The petitioners sought to deposit service tax as per the issued Form-SVLDRS-3. The writ petition was filed before the High Court challenging this inaction. The tax period(s) and the specific amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the judgment. The procedural history relevant is the filing of the representation and the subsequent writ petition due to the lack of a response.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Bankura Division, has failed to consider and dispose of the representation dated November 9, 2020, submitted by the petitioners, thereby violating principles of natural justice and administrative law? (Question of law) Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners argued that their representation dated November 9, 2020, seeking to deposit service tax as per Form-SVLDRS-3, has not been considered or acted upon by the respondent No. 1. They are seeking a direction from the Court for its disposal. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the respondents regarding the non-consideration of the representation. The focus of the hearing was on the disposal of the writ petition based on the submissions made.