Vijay Kumar Jaiswal vs. State Of West Bengal

WPA/7838/2020HC CalcuttaGSTCNR WBCHCA102224202027 November 2020Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK3 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The petitioner, Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, challenged an order dated July 27, 2020, passed under Section 74 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the adjudicating authority passed the order based on documents that were not supplied to him. While acknowledging that the order was appealable under Section 107(11) of the Act, the petitioner argued that the appellate remedy was not efficacious because the appellate authority could not remand the matter. Therefore, the petitioner sought to maintain the writ petition.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable due to the existence of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal. The Court addressed the petitioner's apprehension regarding the non-supply of documents by stating that any document relied upon by a party in an adjudicating proceeding must be shared with the opponent. Therefore, the appellate authority would undoubtedly provide the documents that the department relies upon, including those used before the adjudicating authority. The Court found the petitioner's apprehension to be misplaced. In view of the statutory alternative remedy where the petitioner can raise the issue of non-supply of documents, the Court was not inclined to interfere with the writ petition. The writ petition was disposed of.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the existence of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107(11) of the Act of 2017, despite the petitioner's apprehension regarding the efficacy of such remedy. Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the writ petition is maintainable because the appellate remedy is not efficacious. This is due to the apprehension that the appellate authority cannot remand the matter to the adjudicating authority. The petitioner also highlighted that the adjudicating authority relied on documents that were not provided to him. Revenue's contentions: The respondent authorities were represented. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue beyond their representation.

Sections Cited

Section 74, Section 107

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

27.11.2020 Ct. No.24 SL No.20 KS W.P.A. No.7838 of 2020 Vijay Kumar Jaiswal Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. (Via Video Conference) [ Mr. Suryaneel Das …..For the Petitioner Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar Mr. Soumitra Mukherjee Mr. Avra Mazumder …..For the State An order dated July 27, 2020 passed under Section 74 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is under challenge in the present writ petition. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the adjudicating authority passed the order on the basis of documents, copies of which were not supplied to the petitioner. He draws the attention of the Court to Sub- Section (11) of Section 107 of the Act of 2017 and submits that, although, the impugned order is appealable, the remedy by way of appeal is not efficacious as, the appellate authority cannot remand the matter to the adjudicating authority. In such circumstances, he submits that, the writ petition is maintainable. Respondent authorities are represented. As noted above, an order passed under Section 74 of the Act of 2017 is under challenge. Indisputably, the impugned order is appealable. Petitioner expresses an apprehension that the appellate authority will not provide the petitioner the documents which the department seeks to rely upon in support of the case. In fact, the department relied upon the documents before the adjudicating authority without sharing the same with the petitioner. With the deepest respect, such apprehension is misplaced. Any document that, any of the parties in an adjudicating proceeding seeks to rely upon, is required to be shared with the opponent. Therefore, the appellate authority, will no doubt, provide the documents which, the department relies upon in support of its case to the appellant including the documents that, the department 2 relied upon before the adjudicating authority resulting in the

impugned order. In such circumstances, in view of the existence of the statutory alternative remedy, where the petitioner can urge the point of the non-supply of documents which the department relied upon before the adjudicating authority, resulting in the order of original, I am not minded to interfere with the present writ petition. W.P.A. No.7838 of 2020 is disposed of.

(Debangsu Basak, J.) 3

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.