Khatu Shyam Ispat Private Limited & Anr vs. State Of West Bengal & Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Khatu Shyam Ispat Private Limited and another, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Calcutta. They challenged the power of the Bureau of Investigation to issue summons to them under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioners are questioning the jurisdiction of the issuing authority. The State of West Bengal and others are the respondents. The case was heard through video conference.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition was premature. It reasoned that the petitioners had not yet appeared before the investigating officer and raised their objections regarding jurisdiction. Therefore, the appropriate course of action was for the petitioners to first approach the concerned officer and present their case. The Court directed that the writ petition be treated as a representation before the officer. The officer was directed to pass a reasoned order concerning his jurisdiction after granting the petitioners an opportunity of hearing within four weeks of the order's communication. The reasoned order was to be communicated to the petitioners within two weeks of its passing. The Court did not decide on the merits of the jurisdictional challenge itself.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition filed by the petitioners challenging the issuance of summons under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is premature? The petitioners contended that the summons issued by the Bureau of Investigation is without jurisdiction and therefore liable to be quashed. They argued that the writ petition is maintainable as it raises a question of jurisdiction. The State contended that the writ petition is premature as the petitioners have not yet appeared before the investigating officer and presented their case. They argued that the petitioners should first exhaust the available remedies by appearing before the authority and raising their jurisdictional objections.
Sections Cited
Section 70
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2020 ss W.P.A. 166 of 2020 (Through Video Conference) , Khatu Shyam Ispat Private Limited & anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & ors. ,,
Mr. Anil Kumar Dugar Mr. Rajarshi Chatterjee … for the petitioners Mr. Talay M. Siddiqui Mr. Avra Mazumdar … for the State This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioners are challenging the power of the Bureau of Investigation to issue summons to them under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. In my view, this is a pre-mature writ petition and the writ petition can be disposed of with a direction upon the officer concerned to treat this writ petition as a representation before him with regard to the challenge of the juri iction of the officer concerned. The officer concerned shall pass a reasoned order with regard to his juri iction after granting the petitioners an opportunity of hearing within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. The reasoned order is to be 2 communicated to the petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of passing of such reasoned order. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Since no affidavit-in-opposition is called for, allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted. All parties are to act on website copy of this order. (Shekhar B. Saraf, 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.