Kushalo Kadel vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Facts

The appellant, Shri Kaushal Kadel, challenged an adjudication order passed by the respondent authority under Section 74(9) of the West Bengal G.S.T. Act, 2017. The appellant contended that the full text of the order was not communicated and that it was a non-speaking order, violating principles of natural justice. During the writ proceedings, a speaking order dated February 19, 2021, was served. The learned writ court directed the appellant to file a hard copy of the statutory appeal, as online filing was not possible, and instructed the appellate authority to consider and dispose of it. Dissatisfied with this direction, the appellant filed intra-Court appeals.

Held

The Court held that while an appeal is a continuation of the original proceeding, an opportunity before the original authority is distinct from an opportunity before the first appellate authority. Therefore, the appellant should be granted one more opportunity to submit a proper reply. The Court did not set aside the order dated February 19, 2021, but directed it to be treated as an additional show-cause notice. The appellant is to submit his objections within two weeks of receiving a server copy of the judgment. The appropriate authority (Deputy Commissioner of State Tax) will then afford a personal hearing and pass fresh orders on merits, without being influenced by the previous order. The proceedings are to be concluded within six weeks from the conclusion of the personal hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellant was denied principles of natural justice due to the non-communication of the full adjudication order and its nature as a non-speaking order, as contemplated under Section 74(9) of the West Bengal G.S.T. Act, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: The appellant argued that the adjudication order was not properly communicated and was non-speaking, thus violating natural justice. The appellant's reply to the show-cause notice was a general denial of fraudulent activities and assertion of the legality of his business and refund. The appellant contended that an opportunity before the original authority cannot be equated to an opportunity before the first appellate authority. Revenue's Argument: The learned Government counsel submitted that the appellant could canvass all issues before the first appellate authority, and therefore, the learned single Bench was correct in directing the filing of a statutory appeal.