Basanta Kumar Shaw, Proprietor Of M/S. N.M.D. Engineering Works vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Revenue, Commercial Taxes And State Tax, Tamluk Charge And Ors
Facts
The petitioner, Basanta Kumar Shaw, proprietor of N.M.D. Engineering Works, filed a writ petition challenging the negative blocking of his Electronic Credit Ledger by the GST authorities. The authorities had issued a show-cause notice on January 20, 2022, requiring a response by February 4, 2022. The petitioner, however, sought extensions for filing his reply, submitting letters on May 31, 2022, and June 13, 2022, effectively taking approximately five months to respond. The petitioner contended that the negative blocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) was done without disposing of his reply to the show-cause notice.
Held
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the concerned Officer to consider and dispose of the petitioner's reply dated June 13, 2022, to the show-cause notices expeditiously, preferably within three weeks from the communication of the order. The disposal must be in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, and by providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorized representative. The Court further directed that if the petitioner establishes a case for revoking the negative blocking of ITC during the hearing, the Officer shall take immediate steps to revoke it. The judgment did not explicitly decide on the legality of the negative blocking itself but focused on procedural fairness.
Key Issues
1. Whether the negative blocking of the Electronic Credit Ledger was a harsh action taken during the pendency of adjudication proceedings, considering the petitioner's delay in responding to the show-cause notice? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the negative blocking of ITC was an arbitrary and harsh action taken by the respondents without properly considering his reply to the show-cause notice, which was filed after seeking extensions. The petitioner implied that the blocking was premature. Revenue/State's Argument: The State did not explicitly record any arguments in the judgment regarding the petitioner's contentions. However, the judgment notes the petitioner's own delay in filing the reply to the show-cause notice.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned in the provided text.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2022 Taxes and State Tax, Tamluk Charge & Ors.
Mr. Ankit Kanodia, Mr. Himangshu Kr. Ray, Ms. Megha Agarwal … For the Petitioner.
Mr. A. Ray, Ld. GP., Mr. S. Mukherjee, Mr. N. Chatterjee, Mr. D. Sahu … For the State.
Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned action of the respondents GST Authority by negative blocking of the Electronic Credit Ledger on the ground that such harsh action has been taken during the pendency of the adjudication proceedings in question. It appears from record that the respondents’ authorities concerned had issued a show-cause-notice dated 20th January, 2022 by which petitioner was asked to give response to the same by 4th of February, 2022. It appears from record that in response to the aforesaid show-cause-notice petitioner had prayed for extension for a period of two weeks for giving r
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.