Bhola Nath Agarwal vs. Superintendent Range Vi Shyambazar Division And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Bhola Nath Agarwal, challenged a notice dated May 13, 2021, issued by the Superintendent, Range VI, Shyambazar Division, Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Kolkata North Commissionerate. The notice pertained to a demand, the details of which were specified within it. The petitioner was granted seven days to reply to this notice. Instead of responding within the stipulated period, the petitioner waited for approximately one year before filing the present writ petition seeking intervention from the High Court regarding the impugned notice.
Held
The Court declined to entertain the writ petition on its merits, citing the petitioner's failure to respond to the impugned notice within the stipulated seven days and the subsequent delay of approximately one year in approaching the Court. The Court observed that it was not inclined to interfere with the notice under these circumstances. However, to provide some relief, the Court extended the time for the petitioner to file a reply to the notice by one week. The Court explicitly stated that it had not examined the merits or legality of the notice dated May 13, 2021. It directed that if a reply is filed within the extended period, the concerned authority shall consider it strictly in accordance with the law. The Court did not decide on the validity of the demand or the underlying GST liability.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging a show-cause notice when the petitioner has failed to avail the statutory remedy of filing a reply within the prescribed period, and has instead approached the Court after a significant delay of approximately one year? (Question of law and procedure). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner approached the High Court by way of a writ petition challenging the impugned notice. Revenue's contention: The respondent authorities argued that the petitioner had an opportunity to reply to the notice within seven days, but failed to do so, and instead approached the Court after a delay of nearly a year. The Court was not inclined to interfere with the notice on these grounds.
Sections Cited
Not specified
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2022 Kolkata North Commissionerate & Ors. Mr. Anil Dugar, Mr. Rajarshi Chatterjee … For the Petitioner. Mr. K.K. Maiti … For the Respondent Nos.1-3. Mr. Jasojeet Mukherjee ... For the UOI. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned notice dated 13th May, 2021 being Annexure P-2 to the writ petition relating to the demand in question, details of which would appear from the said notice. On perusal of the aforesaid impugned notice I find that the petitioner was given liberty to give reply within seven days from the date of the said notice and instead of giving reply to the same and waiting almost for a year, now the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition for interfering with the aforesaid impugned notice, which I am not inclined to interfere and I am not entertaining this writ petition. However, time to give reply to the aforesaid impugned notice is extended for a week and if such 2 reply is filed, the authority concerned may consider the same in accordance with law. With this observation, this writ petition, being WPA 5689 of 2022 is disposed of. Let it be recorded that this Court has not gone into the merits and legality of the aforesaid notice dated 13th May, 2021 and the authority concerned will be entitled to take decision on the same strictly in accordance with law after considering the reply, if any, to be filed by the petitioner. ( Md. Nizamuddin, 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.