M/S. Srimani Distributors vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Srimani Distributors, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Calcutta being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent authorities in considering their representations dated September 18, 2020, and October 6, 2020. The petitioner sought a direction for the respondents to consider and dispose of these representations. The respondents, including the State of West Bengal and others, were represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax(GST), Shibpur Charge, who was the primary authority concerned with the representations. The amount in dispute and specific tax periods were not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history involves the petitioner filing representations which were allegedly not acted upon, leading to the present writ petition.

Held

The Court held that the Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax(GST), Shibpur Charge (respondent No. 6), should consider and dispose of the petitioner's representations dated September 18, 2020, and October 6, 2020. The Court directed that this consideration should be done in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order. An opportunity of hearing must be provided to the petitioner or their authorized representative. The decision of the respondent No. 6 is to be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks after passing the order. The Court explicitly stated that it had not gone into the merits of the case and that respondent No. 6 was to consider the case strictly in accordance with law. The ratio decidendi is that administrative authorities must consider and dispose of representations filed by taxpayers in a timely and reasoned manner, providing an opportunity for hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct the respondent authorities to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representations dated September 18, 2020, and October 6, 2020? The petitioner argued that the respondent authorities had failed to act upon their representations, necessitating judicial intervention to ensure their consideration. The petitioner sought a direction for a reasoned and speaking order after an opportunity of hearing. The respondents did not appear before the Court, and therefore, no arguments were recorded on their behalf. The Court was not asked to decide on the merits of the petitioner's case, but rather on the procedural grievance of non-consideration of their representations.