M/S. M.C.Ghosh And Associates vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State GST, Srirampur Charge And Ors

Held

The Court did not delve into the merits of the case. Instead, it disposed of the writ petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an effective representation or objection against the impugned intimation/order dated July 16, 2021, within two weeks from the date of the order. The Court directed the respondent authority to consider and dispose of this representation within four weeks of its submission. The disposal was to be a reasoned and speaking order, allowing the petitioner or their authorized representative to present all arguments made in the writ petition. If the assessing officer found that the petitioner had made a case for lifting the ITC block, an order to that effect was to be passed immediately. The Court explicitly recorded that it had not examined the substantive issues of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. M. C. Ghosh & Associates, filed a writ petition challenging an intimation/order dated July 16, 2021, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax (GST), Serampore Charge. The petitioner contended that their input tax credit (ITC) was blocked based on a non-speaking order that failed to consider their submissions and documents, and disregarded relevant legal provisions. They also argued that coercive action was taken without prior notice. The State respondents asserted that the action was lawful and adequately justified, referring to Annexure P-3.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned intimation/order dated July 16, 2021, is a non-speaking order and was passed without considering the petitioner's submissions and documents, thereby violating relevant provisions of law? 2. Whether the blocking of input tax credit was a coercive action that should not have been taken without providing prior notice to the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the order was non-speaking, arbitrary, and passed without due consideration of their representations and supporting documents, violating principles of natural justice and relevant GST provisions. They contended that blocking ITC without prior notice was an illegal coercive measure. State's Arguments: The State respondents argued that the action taken was in accordance with law and that sufficient reasons were provided in the impugned order, referencing Annexure P-3.