Kuldeep Chaturvedi vs. The Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Kuldeep Chaturvedi, filed a writ petition challenging the withholding of his legitimate dues by respondent authorities. The petitioner contended that he had complied with all GST formalities and submitted relevant invoices. The respondent authorities claimed a mismatch between the petitioner's GST compliance and the concerned GST Account Number. The impugned order stated that the petitioner's representative did not resolve the issue verbally during a hearing, refused to answer queries, and left the meeting without signing the minutes, leading to the conclusion that the petitioner had suppressed invoices in GSTR-1. The petitioner argued that no change in account was communicated, absolving him of liability for any mismatch.
Held
The Court acknowledged a misunderstanding at the hearing between the parties. However, it noted that the sole premise of the impugned order was the alleged suppression of invoices in GSTR-1, which the petitioner claimed were annexed to the present writ petition. To subserve the ends of justice, the Court directed respondent no. 4 to consider the writ petition as a representation. The respondent was instructed to give the petitioner a hearing and an opportunity to produce the originals of the documents annexed to the petition. Based on this, respondent no. 4 is to arrive at a reasoned conclusion regarding the petitioner's legitimate dues. The Court expects this exercise to be completed within six weeks, and the reasoned decision to be communicated in writing. If the petitioner is found entitled to any amount, it should be disbursed within a month of the decision.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondent authorities erred in concluding that the petitioner suppressed invoices in GSTR-1, thereby justifying the withholding of legitimate dues, considering the petitioner's claim of full GST compliance and the alleged lack of communication regarding account changes? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that all GST compliances were made and relevant invoices were annexed to the petition. They contended that they cannot be held liable for any mismatch as no change in account was ever informed by the respondent authorities. The petitioner relied on the annexures to the writ petition as proof of compliance. Revenue's arguments: The respondent authorities relied on the impugned decision, highlighting that the petitioner's authorized representative did not agree to resolve the issue verbally, was unable to answer queries, refused to sign minutes of a meeting, and left the meeting. This led to the conclusion that the petitioner had suppressed invoices in GSTR-1.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
D/L. 5. … for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajendra Banerjee, Mr. Subrata Santra
…for the Union of India.
Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the petitioner having complied with all GST formalities, the respondent authorities, for whom the petitioner did several works as per tender, are withholding legitimate dues of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the bunch of documents annexed to the writ petition to argue that due GST compliances were made by the petitioner and the relevant invoices are annexed.
2
It is submitted that the respondent authorities took a plea that there was a mismatch between the GST compliance of the petitioner and the concerned GST Account Number. However, no change in account was ever informed to the petitioner by the respondent authorities and, as such, the petitioner cannot be held to be liable for any such mismatch, which has occurred between the respondent authorities and the GST authorities
Learned counsel for the respondent authorities places reliance on the impugned decision.
It is pointed out that in the two penultimate paragraphs thereof, it has clearly been recorded that despite an opportunity of hearing being given to the petitioner pursuant to an order of a co-ordinate Bench, the authorized representative of the petitioner did not agree to resolve the issue verbally and submitted that he was not in a position to answer. It was also alleged in the impugned order that the petitioner did not agree to reply to any query with respect to several annexures to the previous writ petition and left
3 the meeting and refused to sign the minutes of the meeting.
As such, the impugned conclusion was taken that the petitioner had suppressed the invoices in GSTR-1. 8. Upon hearing both sides, it is clear that there was some misunderstanding at the hearing between the parties.
However, since the sole premise of the impugned order was that the petitioner had suppressed the invoices in GSTR-1, all of which have been annexed to the present writ petition, the ends of justice would be sub- served in the event the respondent authorities consider all the annexures to the present writ petition, if necessary insisting upon the petitioner to produce the originals thereof and to take a decision thereafter.
Accordingly, WPA No. 13494 of 2024 is disposed of by directing the respondent no. 4 to consider the present writ petition as the representation of the petitioner and upon giving a hearing to the petitioner as well as granting an opportunity to the petitioner to produce the originals of the documents annexed hereto, to come to a reasoned
4
conclusion as to the legitimate dues of the petitioner.
The petitioner, upon getting notice of hearing, shall attend through a representative, who should be well aware and conversant with the entire details and particulars of the case in order to properly assist the respondent no. 4 in coming to such reasoned conclusion.
It is expected that the entire exercise shall be completed within six weeks from date.
It is further made clear that if there is any further dispute, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the reasoned decision of the respondent no. 4 by way of a properly constituted challenge.
After coming to a conclusion, the respondent no. 4 shall communicate to the petitioner in writing the reasoned decision taken by the respondent no. 4 on the dispute involved.
In the event the respondent no. 4 is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the entire or partial amount, the respondent no. 4 shall ensure that such admitted amount is disbursed within a month from the date of such decision to the petitioner. It will then be
5 open to the petitioner to challenge the non- payment of part amount, if any.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.