Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA (CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI)
HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA
Bratin Sikder – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.
1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated May 27, 2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax, B.I. (North Bengal), Alipurduar Zone, Alipurduar.
2. The petitioner is a sole proprietorship concern engaged in the business of works contract. The petitioner is registered under the WEST BENGAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT , 2017 (in short WBGST Act, 2017). A show-cause notice dated March 21, 2022 was issued by the concerned Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax authority asking the petitioner to show- cause as to why the petitioner should not pay the amount as indicated in the said show-cause notice. Petitioner claims to have replied to the said show-cause notice and the concerned Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand raised in the show cause notice by the impugned order.
3. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner prior to passing of the impugned order. He submits that when an adverse order is contemplated against a person an opportunity of hearing has to be afforded to such person.
4
An order assessing tax cannot be sustained if the proper officer denies an effective opportunity of hearing, as mandated by Section 75(4) of the WBGST Act, 2017.
An adverse decision must be accompanied by an effective opportunity of hearing as mandated by statutory provisions; failure to do so renders the decision invalid.
Natural justice mandates an adequate opportunity for hearings; failure to do so renders an order void.
The court affirmed that timelines in tax appeal processes are directory, not mandatory, allowing for flexibility under circumstances of procedural injustice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the opportunity of hearing must be comprehensive and cannot be short-circuited, and it must provide a real and meaningful opportunity for a fa....
The court upheld that jurisdiction can transfer to a successor, and delays in adjudication can be justified; hence, orders passed beyond specified time limits may not be invalid if reasons are adequa....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compliance with the provisions of the SGST Act and the CGST Act, including the consequences of clerical errors in filling up fo....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement of providing an opportunity for personal hearing as mandated by Section 75(4) of the UPGST Act, 2017, in upholding princi....
A statutory obligation exists to provide an opportunity for personal hearing before passing adverse orders under the GST framework, regardless of the applicant's request.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
