Masibul Hassan vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Facts
The petitioner, Masibul Hassan, approached the High Court of Calcutta in W.P.A 2237 of 2023 against the State of West Bengal and others. The petitioner sought to ascertain further dues owed to him. The State, through a written instruction, stated that the total payable amount to the petitioner was Rs. 8,31,216. After deductions for GST, Cess, and income tax, Rs. 7,97,967 was paid on December 28, 2022. The State's counsel offered a further hearing to the petitioner to determine if any additional dues were payable. The Court noted that it was inappropriate for a writ court to assess evidence to ascertain such dues.
Held
The Court held that it was inappropriate for the writ court to assess evidence to ascertain the actual dues owed by the respondents to the petitioner. Instead, the Court directed the respondents to provide the petitioner with a further notice of hearing within one week from the date of the order. This hearing would allow the petitioner to present any grievances regarding further dues. If the petitioner could substantiate their claims with necessary documents and materials, the respondents were directed to take immediate steps to disburse the dues. The entire exercise was expected to be concluded within three weeks. The Court also clarified that since no affidavits were filed, no allegations made by either party were admitted. No issue regarding the specific GST provisions or the calculation of dues was definitively decided, as the matter was remitted for a hearing.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ court is the appropriate forum to ascertain the exact quantum of dues payable to the petitioner by the respondents, considering the need for evidence assessment? The petitioner sought to ventilate grievances regarding further dues. The respondents argued that the writ court should not assess evidence for determining the actual dues. They offered a further hearing to the petitioner to present their case. The respondents contended that Rs. 7,97,967 was paid after deductions, and if the petitioner was unsatisfied, a hearing could be provided. The petitioner's specific arguments beyond seeking a hearing are not detailed in the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
11th October, 2023 (AK) 07 …for the petitioner.
Mr. Jayanta Samanta Ms. Sinthia Bala …for the State.
A written instruction is handed over by learned counsel for the State which indicates that, as per the respondents, the total payable amount to the petitioner was Rs. 8,31,216/- out of which, after deduction of GST, Cess and income tax, total Rs. 7,97,967/- was paid to the petitioner vide the Office Bank Advice No.883/G/En dated December 28, 2022, a copy of which is also enclosed with the written instruction.
However, learned counsel for the respondents submits that if the petitioner is not satisfied with such instructions, the respondents are willing to give a further hearing to the petitioner for the purpose of ascertaining whether there are any further dues by the respondents to the petitioner.
In view of such fair submission, since i
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.