Jac Olivol Products Private Limited And Anr. vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax, Bureau Of Investigation, South Bengal Hq And Ors.

Facts

The petitioners, Hahnemann’s Jac Olivol Group of Products Private Limited & Anr. and Jac Olivol Products Private Limited & Anr., challenged preliminary reports dated June 2, 2023, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Bureau of Investigation, South Bengal HQ. These reports sought objections from the petitioners by June 16, 2023, and offered an opportunity for a personal hearing. The petitioners argued that the respondent no. 1 lacked jurisdiction to issue these reports or demand objections and hearings. The respondent authorities initiated a visit to the petitioners' office on February 10, 2023, requesting documents. Subsequent correspondence involved the petitioners raising allegations of violation of natural justice, which were not found tenable by the respondent no. 1. The petitioners also sought recusal of respondent no. 1, which was addressed by the Special Commissioner of Revenue.

Held

The Court held that the writ petitions were premature and dismissed them. The Court found that the petitioners were challenging mere preliminary reports based on an investigation at its initial stage. The petitioners had been provided with multiple opportunities to file objections to these preliminary reports and to attend personal hearings, but they voluntarily did not avail these opportunities. The Court also noted that the petitioners had not annexed any of their objections or responses filed during the proceedings. Furthermore, the Court found that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the petitioners was under a different Act and was distinguishable on both facts and law. The Court reasoned that the respondent no. 1 was acting within the scope of his investigative powers and had not yet assumed the role of an adjudicating authority. Therefore, interference at this preliminary stage was not warranted.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Bureau of Investigation, South Bengal HQ, has the jurisdiction to issue preliminary reports and seek objections and personal hearings from the petitioners under the WBGST Act, 2017. The petitioners contended that the respondent no. 1 does not have the jurisdiction to ask them to file objections to the preliminary reports or to avail of a personal hearing, arguing that the respondent's actions were an attempt to issue a show-cause notice prematurely and that the Bureau of Investigation officer lacked the authority to investigate. The respondents argued that the writ petitions were premature and misconceived as the actions taken by the Bureau of Investigation were at the preliminary stage of investigation. They asserted that the preliminary reports were issued to observe the principle of natural justice, providing an opportunity for objections and hearings, which the petitioners failed to avail. The respondents further contended that the respondent no. 1 was empowered under Section 67 of the WBGST Act, 2017, read with relevant orders and rules, to conduct investigations, and that no demand for voluntary payment or show-cause notice under Section 73 had been issued.