Kazi Maksudul Islam vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Kazi Maksudul Islam, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Calcutta challenging the seizure of his excavator. The petitioner contended that the seizure was arbitrary and deprived him of his livelihood. The respondent authorities, represented by the State, claimed that the seizure was effected under Section 129 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that no hearing date had been fixed, despite the requirement under Section 129(4) of the Act to provide an opportunity of being heard before determining tax, interest, or penalty. The Court noted that a competent authority existed to decide such disputes under the Act.
Held
The Court held that while a competent authority exists under the 2017 Act to decide disputes arising from seizures, the petitioner had not yet been afforded an opportunity of being heard as mandated by Section 129(4). The Court acknowledged the petitioner's grievance regarding the lack of a hearing date. Consequently, the Court did not delve into the merits of the seizure or whether the excavator qualified as a 'vehicle' for seizure purposes. The Court's decision was to direct the respondent-authorities to issue a notice to the petitioner within one week, clearly specifying a date, time, and address for the hearing. Following the hearing, the authorities are to decide the issue expeditiously. The Court also stated that if the petitioner complies with the Act's requirements, the excavator shall be released immediately thereafter. The petitioner retains the right to challenge the final decision before the appropriate forum.
Key Issues
1. Whether the seizure of the petitioner's excavator was made in accordance with the provisions of Section 129 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, particularly concerning the requirement of providing an opportunity of being heard? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the seizure was arbitrary and that no date for hearing had been fixed, thus violating the principles of natural justice as enshrined in Section 129(4) of the Act. They sought immediate release of the excavator. Revenue's contention: The respondent authorities contended that the seizure was made in terms of Section 129 of the Act. They did not explicitly address the petitioner's argument regarding the lack of a hearing date, but their report indicated the seizure was under Section 129.
Sections Cited
Section 129, Section 129(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
D/L. 67. … for the petitioner. Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee, Mr. Debashis Ghosh, Mr. Debraj Saha …for the State. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s excavator was seized without any reason, thereby depriving the petitioner of the means of livelihood. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities, pursuant to the query of court, files a report claiming that the seizure was made in terms of Section 129 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (2017 Act). It transpires that sub-Section (4) of the Section 129 provides that no tax, interest or penalty shall be determined under sub-Section (3) thereof without giving the person concerned an opportunity of being heard.
2 However, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that no date of hearing has yet been fixed. Accordingly, since there is a competent authority to decide such disputes as provided under the 2017 Act, there is no scope of interference at this juncture by this Court in writ juri iction. WPA No. 27829 of 2022 is, thus, disposed of by directing the respondent-authorities to issue a notice indicating a date of hearing to the petitioner. Such notice shall be issued within a week from date, indicating clearly therein the exact date, time and address at which the petitioner is to appear for the purpose of such hearing. Upon the petitioner being so heard, the respondent-authorities shall decide the issue expeditiously in accordance with law. It will be open to the petitioner to challenge the ultimate decision taken by the authorities, if aggrieved thereby, before the appropriate forum as designated under the Act. In the event the petitioner duly complies with the requirement of the 2017 Act, the 3 respondent-authorities shall release the excavator of the petitioner immediately thereafter. This Court has not entered into the merits of the allegations and counter-allegations of the parties, including the question as raised by the petitioner as to whether the excavator-in-question is, in the strict technical sense, a ‘vehicle’ for the purpose of seizure. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)
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.