IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Circuit Bench At Jalpaiguri

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

W.P.A. 2129 of 2025

Cosmopolitan Solar Energizer

Vs.

State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Sharma

Mr. Anik Majum der

For the State :Mr. Joyjit Chakraborty, Ld. AAG

Ms. Rima Sarkar

Heard on : 31/10/2025 Judgment on : 31/10/2025

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya , J. :

1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is

directed against an order dated August 22, 2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Jalpaiguri Charge under

section 73(9) of the WBGST Act, 2017.

2. The petitioner is a registered person under the West Bengal

Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘WBGST Act), and

engaged in the business of installation of solar panels. A show- cause notice under section 73(1) of the WBGST Act has been issued dated May 16, 2024 alleging that upon scrutiny of the data furnished by the registered tax payer in GSTR 3B vis- a -vis GSTR1/GSTR-9 and claim in utilization of input tax credit (ITC) in respect of supply shown by its supplier in GSTR-1, few discrepancies revealed.

3. The petitioner was directed to show cause as to why the petitioner should not make the payment of tax, interest and penalty as indicated in the show cause notice. The show cause notice was followed by the impugned order passed under section 73(9) thereby determining the amount of tax, interest and penalty for the financial year 2019-2020.

4. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that no effective opportunity to give a reply to the show cause notice was afforded to the petitioner.

5. He further submits that the petitioner handed over all papers and documents to his erstwhile consultant requesting him to take steps. However, the erstwhile consultant did not take any step in the matter and also did not participate in the proceedings. The learned advocate further submits that thereafter the petitioner has taken a change from the erstwhile consultant and has engaged the present consultant.

6. He, therefore submits that since no reply to the show cause notice has been filed, an opportunity be given to the petitioner to contest the proceeding from the stage of filing reply to the show cause notice.

7. The learned Additional Advocate General seriously opposes the prayer made by the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is carrying on a business as a sole proprietor. Even if the contention of the petitioner is accepted that he has handed over all papers and documents to the consultant, the petitioner ought to have been more vigilant in dealing with the financial aspects of the business and it is not believable that the petitioner only relied upon a Chartered Accountant entirely without caring to keep a vigil on the activities of the Chartered Accountant.

8. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials placed.

9. Section 73(9) of the WBGST Act states that the proper officer shall, after considering the representation, if any, made by the person chargeable with tax, determine the amount of tax, interest and penalty equivalent to 10% of the tax or Rs. 10,000/- whichever is higher due from such person and issue an order. Section 75 of the WBGST Act lays down the provisions relating to determination of tax. Sub-section (4) of section 75 states that an opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty or any adverse decision is contemplated against such person.

10. From a conjoint reading of the provisions laid down under sections 73 and 75 of the WBGST Act, this Court is of the considered view that where an adverse decision is contemplated against a person, an opportunity of hearing shall be given to such person.

11. After going through the show cause notice, this Court is of the considered view that an adverse decision was contemplated against the petitioner. Thus, the proper o