Basant Kumar Baranawal vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Held

The Court considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by both parties. It was noted that the petitioner's representation dated August 4, 2023, concerning the disallowance of input tax credit and restrictions on its availment, was pending before respondent No. 2. The Court found merit in the petitioner's plea for the disposal of this representation. Consequently, the Court directed respondent No. 2 to consider and dispose of the said representation in accordance with the law. This disposal must be through a reasoned and speaking order, and the petitioner or their authorized representative must be given an opportunity of hearing. The entire process is to be completed within four weeks from the date of communication of the order. No specific issue of law was decided, but the procedural direction was based on the principle of ensuring timely redressal of grievances.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Basant Kumar Baranawal, filed a representation dated August 4, 2023, before the Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, Bureau of Investigation, South Bengal (HQ), who is respondent No. 2. The grievance concerned the disallowance of debit of input tax credit from the electronic credit ledger and the imposition of restrictions on availing input tax credit. This representation remained pending before the said authority. The present writ petition was filed before the High Court challenging the inaction of the respondent in not disposing of the representation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent No. 2 has failed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated August 4, 2023, regarding the disallowance of input tax credit and restrictions on its availment, thereby violating principles of natural justice and statutory obligations? The petitioner argued that their representation, filed on August 4, 2023, concerning crucial issues of input tax credit disallowance and restrictions, has not been addressed by respondent No. 2. They contended that this inaction is contrary to law and the principles of natural justice, as they have a right to have their grievances heard and decided. The petitioner sought a direction for the prompt and reasoned disposal of their representation. The State, represented by the learned Government Pleader, acknowledged the pendency of the representation and did not contest the petitioner's claim for its disposal. Their submission was implicitly in favor of the court directing the authority to act as per law.