Swapan Kumar Biswas And Anr. vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax(GST),Bureau Of Investigation(S.Bengal),Durgapur Zone And Ors.

Facts

The petitioners, Swapan Kumar Biswas & Anr., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Calcutta. The core of their grievance, detailed in a representation made on October 3, 2023, to the respondent authorities, remained unaddressed. The petitioners contended that their representation was pending consideration. The respondent authorities, including the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (GST), Bureau of Investigation (South Bengal), were impleaded in the petition. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute were not explicitly stated in the judgment. The procedural history relevant to the High Court's decision was the pendency of the petitioners' representation.

Held

The Court held that the respondent authorities were obligated to consider and dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioners. The Court did not delve into the merits of the representation itself, emphasizing that its role was to ensure administrative action. The reasoning was based on the principle that representations made to authorities should be addressed in a timely and lawful manner, affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts, in exercise of their writ jurisdiction, can direct authorities to consider and decide pending representations within a stipulated timeframe, ensuring adherence to law and natural justice. The operative direction was to dispose of the representation dated October 3, 2023, by passing a reasoned and speaking order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, within four weeks from the communication of the order. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authorities have failed to consider and dispose of the representation dated October 3, 2023, made by the petitioners, thereby violating principles of natural justice and administrative efficiency? (Question of law and fact, concerning the duty to act on representations). Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that their representation, submitted on October 3, 2023, was still pending and that the respondent authorities had not taken any action to address their grievances. They sought a direction from the Court for the disposal of this representation. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions made by the State or its authorities. The Court proceeded to pass an order based on the submissions of the parties and the record.