Rohit Varma vs. Assistant Commissioner, Burtola, Kolkata North, West Bengal And Ors

Facts

The appellant, Rohit Varma, filed an intra-court appeal against an order of a learned single judge that dismissed his writ petition. The writ petition challenged an order by the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, which affirmed the cancellation of the appellant's GST registration. The cancellation was based on the finding that the appellant did not conduct business from the declared premises and submitted incorrect documents. The Joint Commissioner's order upheld the cancellation under Section 29(2)(e) of the WBGST Act, 2017, read with Rule 21. The appellant's registration, originally under the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003, had migrated to the WBGST Act. A prior show cause notice in 2018 led to cancellation, but the registration was restored in January 2021 upon revocation application. Subsequently, a fresh show cause notice was issued in January 2021 on similar grounds, leading to the impugned cancellation order.

Held

The High Court held that the learned single judge erred in dismissing the writ petition solely on the ground of disputed questions of fact. The Court found that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is available to examine the decision-making process, adherence to principles of natural justice, and jurisdictional errors, especially when the appellate remedy under the Act was exhausted. The Court found the procedure adopted by the authority in cancelling the registration to be flawed. Specifically, the cancellation was based significantly on the statement of a building receptionist who could not recognize the appellant's photograph, which the Court deemed insufficient. The Court opined that a proper inquiry would have involved summoning the appellant, his power of attorney agent, and the landlord to ascertain the facts. The Court did not decide the issue regarding the jurisdiction of the second show cause notice, stating it could be left open for the present. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the writ petition, and remanded the matter to the original authority for a fresh inquiry, directing personal appearance of the appellant, his agent, and the landlord on a specified date.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned single judge erred in holding that the issues raised by the appellant were disputed questions of fact unsuitable for a writ petition, thereby violating the appellant's right to avail alternative remedies and the court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution? (This issue turns on the scope of writ jurisdiction and the availability of alternative remedies). 2. Whether the second show cause notice dated 7th January 2021 was without jurisdiction, given that a prior show cause notice for the same allegations led to an order of cancellation that was subsequently revoked and the registration restored? (This issue turns on principles of double jeopardy or res judicata in administrative proceedings). Petitioner's arguments: The appellant argued that the learned single judge's dismissal was incorrect as the court, in its writ jurisdiction, can examine the decision-making process, principles of natural justice, and jurisdictional errors. The appellant contended that the second show cause notice was issued without jurisdiction because the same allegations were addressed in a previous show cause notice, leading to a cancellation that was later revoked and registration restored. The appellant also argued that the cancellation order was based solely on a receptionist's inability to recognize the appellant's photograph, which was insufficient and flawed procedure. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments made by the respondents (Assistant Commissioner, Burtola, Kolkata North & Ors.) before the High Court regarding the legal issues. The respondents were represented, but their contentions on the merits of the case are not detailed in the judgment.