Nuruddin Ahmed vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Nuruddin Ahmed, is challenging an order dated November 28, 2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Malda Division. This order levied a total taxable amount of Rs. 41,99,693/- along with interest. The petitioner alleges that he was not served with a show-cause notice prior to the passing of this order. The Court, by an order dated August 31, 2026, directed the authorities to report on whether show-cause notices and personal hearings were provided. The respondents' report indicated that show-cause notices for the years 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18 were sent on September 30, 2020, January 6, 2021, and June 24, 2022, respectively. However, the report did not confirm receipt by the assessee, and the dates of dispatch fell within the COVID period. The petitioner also stated that his bank accounts and sundry debtors have been frozen, hindering his business operations.
Held
The Court found that the show-cause notices sent by the department ought to have been replied to by the petitioner prior to the passing of the order in original. The report submitted by the respondents did not conclusively prove that the assessee was served with the copies of the show-cause notices prior to the order being passed. The Court noted that the dispatch dates fell within the COVID period. Consequently, the Court directed the department to unfreeze the petitioner's bank accounts and sundry debtors for a period of 10 days from the communication of the order. Within these 10 days, the petitioner is required to deposit Rs. 4 lakh with the department. Upon such deposit, the accounts will remain unfrozen; otherwise, the freezing will continue. The petitioner must file a reply to the show-cause notice within six weeks, and the department shall pass a fresh order after considering the reply and providing a hearing within eight weeks thereafter. The Court explicitly stated that it did not go into the merits of the case, issues of limitation, or create any precedent, attributing the order to the intervention of the COVID period.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner was duly served with show-cause notices prior to the passing of the order dated November 28, 2022, in accordance with law, particularly considering the dates of dispatch fell within the COVID period? (Question of fact and law) 2. Whether the freezing of the petitioner's bank accounts and sundry debtors is justified, given the alleged lack of proper service of show-cause notices? (Question of law) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends that he was not served with the show-cause notices before the impugned order was passed. He also states that his business is severely impacted due to the freezing of his bank accounts and sundry debtors. Revenue's Arguments: The respondents submitted a report indicating that show-cause notices were dispatched on specific dates. The judgment does not record any further arguments from the revenue regarding the service of notice or the justification for freezing the petitioner's assets.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
AD 8. In the High Court at Calcutta 25.09.2026
Constitutional Writ Juri iction S.D.
Appellate Side
Ct. No. 654
Bench ID
266460
WPA 10757 of 2026
Nuruddin Ahmed Vs. Union of India & Anr.
Mr. Sanjay Bhaumik Mr. Saumya Kejriwal Ms. Ananya Rath Mr. Navin Mittal
…For the petitioner Mr. Uday Sankar Bhattacharya Mr. Kaustav Kanti Maiti Ms. Banani Bhattacharya
…For the CGST Authority
The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated November 28, 2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Central Exercise, Mada Division, Malda.
By the said order, the authorities had levied total taxable amount of Rs.41,99,693/- together with interest on the said sum in accordance with law.
It is the allegation of the petitioner that the petitioner had not been served show-cause notice prior to passing of the said order in original by the authority. Pursuant to the order dated August 31, 2026, this Court directed the authorities to file a report as to whether the
2 show-cause notices or personal hearings were given to the petitioner.
Today, the learned advocate for the respondents has appeared and submitted a report whereby he has indicated that the show-cause notice for the year 2015-16 had been sent on September 30, 2020, for the next year, i.e. 2016-17, the notice was sent on January 6, 2021 and for the subsequent year, i.e. 2017-18, the notice was sent on June 24, 2022. It is, however, not stated in the said report as to whether the assessee received a copy of the said notices after the same were despatched. Therefore, it cannot be conclusively proved that the assessee was served with the copies of the said show-cause notices prior to the order in original was passed. It further appears that the show-cause notices has been sent to the assessee between September 30, 2020 and June 24, 2022 which was the period covered by covid. The petitioner submits that his bank accounts and the sundry debtors have been frozen and, therefore, he is unable to carry on his business.
After going through the records and after considering the submissions of the parties, I find that the show-cause notices sent by the
3 department ought to be replied to by the petitioner prior to passing of the order in original in accordance with law.
The department is directed to unfreeze the account of the petitioner and also the sundry debtors for the period of 10 days from the date of communication of this order. Within the 10 days, the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.4 lakh with the department. If such amount is deposited, the account of the petitioner shall remain unfreezed. However, in default, the accounts and sundry debtors frozen by the department shall survive. The petitioner shall file a reply to the show-cause notice within a period of six weeks from the date of passing of the order and the department shall have to pass the order in original after considering the reply of the petitioner and giving him an opportunity of hearing within a period of eight weeks thereafter.
With this direction, WPA 10757 of 2026 is disposed of.
I have not gone into the issues of limitation raised by the respondents and this order shall not create any precedence for such prayer if allowed. However, I make it clear that the sole
4 reason for passing of this order is due to intervention of COVID period.
I have not called for any affidavit from the department. Therefore, the allegations made in the petition are deemed not to have been admitted.
I have not gone into the merits and all points are kept open.
(Aryak Dutt, J.) SUROJIT DAS +05'30'
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.