Kaushal Kadel vs. State Of West Bengal And Anr

Facts

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

Held

The Court acknowledged that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceeding, but emphasized that an opportunity before the original authority is not equivalent to an opportunity before the first appellate authority. While not setting aside the adjudication order dated 19th February, 2021, the Court decided to grant the appellant one more opportunity. The Court directed that the order dated 19th February, 2021, be treated as an additional show-cause notice. The appellant was to submit their reply within two weeks of receiving a server copy of the judgment. Upon receipt of the reply, the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax was directed to afford a personal hearing to the appellant's authorized representative and pass fresh orders on merits, without being influenced by the previous order. The proceedings were to be concluded within six weeks from the conclusion of the personal hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned writ court erred in directing the appellant to file a statutory appeal before the first appellate authority when the original adjudication order was allegedly passed in violation of principles of natural justice and was non-speaking? Petitioner's arguments: The appellant contended that the original adjudication order was flawed due to a violation of natural justice and being non-speaking. They argued that an opportunity before the original authority cannot be equated with an opportunity before the appellate authority. The appellant sought a more substantive remedy than merely filing a statutory appeal. Revenue's arguments: The learned Government counsel argued that the appellant would be entitled to canvass all issues before the first appellate authority, and therefore, the learned single Bench was correct in directing the filing of a statutory appeal.