Santosh Kumar Ghosh vs. Sales Tax Officer,Krishnanagar Charge And Ors
Facts
The petitioner, Santosh Kumar Ghosh, received a show-cause notice dated January 18, 2021. He submitted a reply on January 27, 2021, to the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, West Bengal, Krishnanagar Charge, Nadia. The petitioner's grievance is that this reply has not been considered or disposed of. The State respondents contended that the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax is not the appropriate authority to address the petitioner's reply. They argued that the appropriate authority is the GST Network, represented by its Chairman (respondent No. 4), and that the petitioner's representation has been forwarded to this authority.
Held
The Court did not delve into the merits of the case or the appropriateness of the initial authority. Instead, it focused on ensuring the petitioner's representation was addressed by the correct authority. The Court directed respondent No. 4, the Chairman of the GST Network, to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated January 27, 2021. This disposal must be in accordance with the law, within six weeks from the communication of the order, and must include a reasoned and speaking order. The petitioner is to be given an opportunity of hearing if they seek it. The Court explicitly stated that it had not examined the merits of the case, and the concerned respondent is free to decide the matter strictly on its merits.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Krishnanagar Charge, Nadia, was the appropriate authority to consider and dispose of the petitioner's reply dated January 27, 2021, to the show-cause notice dated January 18, 2021, under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that he had submitted a reply to the show-cause notice to the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, and his grievance was that this reply had not been considered. The petitioner implicitly argued that the authority to whom the reply was submitted should have addressed it. Revenue/State's Argument: The State respondents argued that the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax was not the appropriate authority to consider the petitioner's reply. They contended that the GST Network, represented by its Chairman (respondent No. 4), was the correct authority for redressal, and the representation had been forwarded to them.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2021 ks WPA 9771 of 2021 sl. 18 Santosh Kumar Ghosh Vs.
Sales Tax Officer, Krishnanagar Charge & Ors.
Mr. Vinay Shraff, Mr. Himangshu Kumar Ray … For the Petitioner.
Mr. A. Ray, Ld. GP., Mr. S. Mukherjee, Mr. Debasish Ghosh … For the State.
Heard learned Advocate for the parties.
The facts involved in brief in this case is that a show-cause-notice dated 18th January, 2021 was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner gave reply to the said show-cause-notice by his letter dated 27th January, 2021 to the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, West Bengal Krishnanagar Charge, Nadia as appears at page 100 being Annexure P-11 to the writ petition. It is the grievance of the petitioner that till date his such reply dated 27th January, 2021 has not been considered and disposed of.
Learned Advocate for the State respondents submits that the said Deputy Commissioner of State Tax is not the appropriate authority to consider the aforesaid
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.