Swarupa Ghosh vs. Asst Commissioner Of State Tax, Bowbazar And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Swarupa Ghosh, challenged an order dated December 28, 2021, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bowbazar Charge. The petitioner contended that the order, which appears to relate to the cancellation of registration, was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The impugned order was issued after the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing and after considering the petitioner's objections to a show-cause notice. The petitioner was dissatisfied with the reasons provided for rejecting their reply to the show-cause notice.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order was not passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court found that the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing and that their objections were considered before the order was passed. The Court stated that if the petitioner is dissatisfied with the reasons given in the order, it does not automatically imply a violation of natural justice. The Court clarified that it cannot examine the sufficiency of the reasons provided by the respondent authority, as this is the function of the appellate authority. The Court also noted that if there were no reasons at all, no opportunity of hearing, or if the order was without jurisdiction, it might have interfered. However, in this case, the writ petition was dismissed due to the availability of an alternative remedy. The Court explicitly stated that it had not examined the merits of the impugned order of cancellation of registration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated December 28, 2021, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bowbazar Charge, violates the principles of natural justice by failing to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the petitioner's reply to the show-cause notice. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. They contended that the reasons provided for rejecting their reply to the show-cause notice were insufficient, leading to a breach of natural justice. Revenue/State's arguments: The State argued that the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing and that their objections were considered. They contended that the High Court cannot delve into the sufficiency of the reasons provided in the order, as this is the domain of the appellate authority.