Shailesh Kumar Jaiswal vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Held

The High Court affirmed the order passed by the learned single judge, finding that it was indeed premature for a writ court to adjudicate into the factual position before the authority had taken a decision. The Court slightly modified the direction issued in the writ petition. The concerned respondent was directed to consider the appellant's representation dated 30th April, 2022, and pass orders regarding the prayer for unblocking the input tax credit ledger expeditiously, but not later than 21st July, 2022. Subsequently, the authority was to consider the reply to the show-cause notice and adjudicate it after affording an opportunity of a personal hearing, either physically or through video conference. The appellant was granted liberty to submit an additional representation, relying on certain decisions, by 14th July, 2022.

Facts

The appellant, Shailesh Kumar Jaiswal, was aggrieved by the order dated 14.06.2022 in WPA 10062 of 2022, which stemmed from the respondent authority's action of blocking his input tax credit by a letter dated 25.04.2022. The appellant contended that despite submitting a representation dated 30th April, 2022, and a reply dated 14.04.2022 to a show-cause notice, the authority had not passed any order, causing him significant prejudice. The High Court, in its appellate jurisdiction, considered the appeal against the single judge's order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ court was premature in adjudicating the factual position before the authority had taken a decision on the matter, as directed by the learned single judge? 2. Whether the appellant's input tax credit ledger should be unblocked, considering his representation and reply to the show-cause notice? Petitioner's Contentions: The appellant argued that the authority's inaction in passing an order, despite his representation and reply to the show-cause notice, had caused him great prejudice. He sought a direction for the unblocking of his input tax credit ledger. Revenue's Contentions: The State, represented by the learned counsel, did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the High Court's affirmation of the single judge's direction suggests an implicit agreement that the matter required a decision from the authority first.