Hahnemanns Jac Olivol Group Of 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 a personal hearing. The petitioners argued that the respondent no. 1 lacked jurisdiction to issue these reports or demand objections and hearings. The respondent issued a notice on February 15, 2023, following a visit on February 10, 2023, where certain documents were requested. The petitioners had previously alleged violations of natural justice in a letter dated March 21, 2023, which was not annexed to the writ petition, and had also sought recusal of respondent no. 1 in a letter dated March 31, 2023, also not annexed.

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 reports and to attend personal hearings, but they voluntarily did not avail these opportunities. The Court also noted that the petitioners had failed to annex any of their objections or responses filed during the proceedings. Furthermore, the Court distinguished the Supreme Court judgment in Canon India Private Limited, stating it was under a different Act and distinguishable on both facts and law. The Court reasoned that the respondent no. 1 was acting within their investigative powers under Section 67 of the WBGST Act, and had not yet assumed the role of an adjudicating authority under Sections 73 or 74. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petitions.

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, and relevant rules and orders? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that the respondent no. 1 lacks jurisdiction to issue such preliminary reports and demand objections or personal hearings, implying an improper exercise of authority. They challenged the very act of being asked to respond to these reports. Revenue's contention: The revenue contended that the writ petitions are premature and misconceived as the actions taken by the Bureau of Investigation are at the preliminary stage of investigation. They argued 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 revenue asserted that no demand for voluntary payment or show-cause notice under Section 73 had been issued, and the respondent no. 1 was acting within the powers conferred by Section 67 of the WBGST Act, read with Rule 139(1) and relevant delegation orders (Order No. 24/WBGST/PRO/17-18 dated 14.12.2017 and order dated 20.11.2019). They also argued that the Supreme Court judgment in Canon India Private Limited was not applicable.