Md Ershad Alam vs. Assistant Commissioner Ofrevenue Statetaxballygunge Charge And Ors
Facts
The petitioner, Md. Ershad Alam, challenged an order passed by the appellate State GST authority on December 17, 2021. The petitioner contended that the appellate authority violated the principles of natural justice by failing to provide an opportunity for a personal hearing. This contention was supported by the appellate order itself and the petitioner's specific demand for a personal hearing as indicated in Annexure to Form GST APL-01. The respondents, representing the State, could not refute this allegation. The dispute revolves around the procedural fairness of the appellate process.
Held
The Court held that the appellate authority violated the principles of natural justice by not providing the petitioner with an opportunity for a personal hearing. The Court found this violation to be substantiated by the record. Consequently, solely on this procedural ground, and without delving into the merits of the appeal, the impugned order dated December 17, 2021, was set aside. The case was remanded back to the appellate authority to consider the appeal afresh and pass a reasoned order, ensuring adherence to the principles of natural justice, within eight weeks from the date of communication of the order. No other issues were decided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appellate State GST authority violated the principles of natural justice by not affording the petitioner a personal hearing, thereby vitiating the impugned order dated December 17, 2021? The petitioner argued that the appellate order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice due to the denial of a personal hearing, despite a specific request made by the petitioner in the appeal form. The petitioner relied on the fact that the appellate order itself indicated no personal hearing was granted. The revenue or State, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax, Ballygunge Charge & Ors., could not contradict the petitioner's assertion regarding the non-affording of a personal hearing.
Sections Cited
Form GST APL-01
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2022. State Tax, Ballygunge Charge & Ors. Mr. Anil Dugar, Mr. Rajarshi Chatterjee, Mr. Debabrata Ghosh. ……..for the petitioner. Mr. A. Ray, Mr. T. M. Siddiqui, Mr. D. Ghosh, Mr. N. Chatterjee. ………for the State. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the appellate State GST authority dated 17th December, 2021 on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice by not affording any opportunity of personal hearing. Petitioner was not given personal hearing as appears from the impugned appellate order itself in spite of specific demand by the petitioner for personal hearing as appears from Annexure to Form GST APL-01 which is annexed to the writ petition at page 51 and from Serial No.10 of that Form it clearly appears that petitioner had wished to be heard in person. Learned advocate appearing for the respondents could not contradict this allegation of non-affording the 2 opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner which is substantiated by record. Consideri
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.