Murtaza B Kaukawala vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the matter should be remanded back to the Assistant Commissioner, N.S. Road & M.R. Charge, for a fresh consideration. The Court set aside the order passed by the appellate authority and directed that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 74 of the GST Act, 2017, dated February 9, 2022, be treated as a show cause notice. The appellant is to submit a reply within three weeks of receiving a server copy of the order. Subsequently, an opportunity for a personal hearing will be granted, and fresh orders will be passed on merits and in accordance with law. The Court's reasoning focused on ensuring the appellant received a proper hearing and that the substantive issues raised regarding natural justice were addressed.

Facts

The appellant, Murtaza B Kaukawala, filed an intra-court appeal against an order dated July 18, 2023, by which a learned Single Bench refused to grant an interim order in a pending writ petition. The writ petition was filed against an order passed by the appellate authority under the WBGST Act, which rejected the appellant's appeal as time-barred. The appellant's original appeal before the appellate authority was against an order by the Assistant Commissioner making him liable for GST payment. The primary grounds for the appeal were alleged violations of natural justice, specifically that no opportunity was provided, only a summary of the show cause notice was furnished, and the show cause notice itself was not communicated, nor was a personal hearing granted.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority was justified in rejecting the appellant's appeal as time-barred, considering the alleged violations of natural justice in the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner. The petitioner argued that the appeal was rejected solely on the ground of being time-barred, without considering the substantive grounds of appeal which included violations of natural justice. The petitioner contended that the Assistant Commissioner failed to provide an opportunity of personal hearing and did not properly communicate the show cause notice. The revenue, represented by the State, argued that the appellant did not avail the opportunity granted by the assessing officer.