Mujibar Mollah vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax (GST) Barasat Charge And Ors
Facts
The petitioner, Mujibar Mollah, has filed a writ petition challenging the blocking of his Input Tax Credit (ITC) by an order dated September 5, 2023, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (GST), Barasat Charge. The petitioner filed the writ petition on January 11, 2024, approximately four months after the impugned action. Prior to filing the writ petition, the petitioner submitted a representation to the concerned authority on January 2, 2024. The writ petition was filed only nine days after this representation, without affording the authority sufficient time to consider it.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner had approached the writ court prematurely. The reasoning was that the petitioner had filed a representation on January 2, 2024, and then rushed to the High Court on January 11, 2024, without giving the respondent authority sufficient time to consider the representation. The Court directed the respondent authority to consider the petitioner's representation dated January 2, 2024, in accordance with the law. This consideration must include passing a reasoned and speaking order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or their authorized representatives. The authority was given two weeks from the date of communication of the order to comply.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner has approached the writ court prematurely by filing the writ petition without allowing the respondent authority adequate time to consider his representation dated January 2, 2024, filed against the order dated September 5, 2023, which blocked his Input Tax Credit (ITC)? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the blocking of his ITC was an impugned action that warranted judicial review. He had made a representation to the authority, and the subsequent filing of the writ petition was a necessary step to seek redressal. Revenue/State's contention: The State argued that the petitioner had rushed to the writ court without giving the authority sufficient time to consider his representation, which was filed only nine days prior to the writ petition. The State contended that the petitioner had not exhausted the available administrative remedies or allowed for a reasonable period for the authority to act on his representation.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
WPA 863 OF 2024 24.01.2024
Sl no. 15
Mujibar Mollah Ct no. 2
- Vs - P.M. The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (GST), Barasat Charge & Ors.
Mr. Sandip Choraria, Mr. Rishav Manna, Mr. Pradeep Pandey
… for the petitioner
Mr. Anirban Ray, Ld. Govt. Pleader Md. T. M. Siddiqui, Mr. T. Chakraborty, Mr. S. Sanyal
… for the State
Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. By this writ petition petitioner has challenged the impugned action of blocking of ITC of the petitioner by order dated 5th September, 2023 by filing this writ petition on 11th January, 2024 that is almost four months after taking such action. It appears from record that against such impugned action petitioner has made a representation on 2nd January, 2024 before the authority concerned and just after nine days of making such representation petitioner has rushed to this writ Court without giving the authority sufficient time to consider such representation.
2 Considering the facts and circumstances of this case this writ petitio
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.