Case Law Details
Priti Builders Vs Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Calcutta High Court)
The writ petition challenged an order dated December 18, 2024 passed under Section 74 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 / Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that a search and seizure operation was conducted at its principal place of business on January 25, 2024, during which documents, books of accounts, and the CPU of its computer were seized. An intimation under Section 74(5) alleging short payment of tax on outward supply due to suppression was issued on March 18, 2024. The petitioner replied on April 9, 2024, requesting copies of the seized records and return of the CPU to enable effective participation in adjudication proceedings.
According to the petitioner, neither copies of the seized documents were supplied nor was the CPU returned. Thereafter, a show cause notice under Section 74(1) was issued proposing tax liability on the ground of suppression. Although a notice for personal hearing was issued, the petitioner did not appear on the scheduled date. However, the petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notice on August 6, 2024, again requesting access to the seized documents and return of the CPU. Despite this, the adjudicating authority passed the impugned order confirming the demand without granting any further opportunity of hearing after receipt of the petitioner’s reply.
The petitioner argued that denial of access to seized documents and the CPU prevented meaningful participation in adjudication and also impeded the filing of an effective appeal. It was contended that this amounted to a breach of the principles of natural justice. The respondents filed an affidavit, contending that the petitioner had been afforded an opportunity of hearing but chose not to appear. Reliance was placed on a letter dated January 6, 2026 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Revenue, WBGST, instructing the petitioner to approach the proper officer to collect the seized documents and CPU. It was also submitted that during adjudication, the petitioner had been allowed access to the CPU and documents along with authorized representatives.
Upon considering the submissions and materials on record, the Court noted that it was undisputed that the seized documents and CPU had not yet been returned to the petitioner. The Court held that in the absence of these materials, the petitioner was deprived of a fair opportunity to contest the proceedings, as the documents forming the basis of the demand were not available to prepare a defence. The Court further found that the petitioner had not been afforded a meaningful opportunity of personal hearing and that, without access to the records, the petitioner would also be unable to prefer a proper appeal.
In the interest of justice, the Court directed that the impugned order dated December 18, 2024 should not be given effect to and should be treated as an additional show cause notice. The petitioner was permitted to file a composite reply to the original show cause notice and the additional show cause notice within two weeks from receipt of the seized documents or copies thereof and the CPU. Directions were issued for return of the seized materials within specified timelines and for completion of adjudication after granting an opportunity of hearing. The Court clarified that it had not examined the merits of the case and left all issues open. The writ petition was disposed of without costs by the Calcutta High Court.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
1. This writ petition assails, inter alia, an order dated December 18, 2024 passed under Section 74 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017 (hereafter “the said Act of 2017”).
2. It is the petitioner’s case that a search and seizure operation had been conducted at the petitioner’s principal place of business on January 25, 2024 during which certain documents and books of accounts as well as the CPU of the petitioners’ computer were seized. Thereafter, an intimation under Section 74(5) of the said Act of 2017, as regards short payment of tax on outward supply on the ground of suppression was served upon the petitioner on March 18, 2024. The petitioner replied thereto on April 9, 2024, thereby, inter alia, requesting the respondent GST Authorities to supply a copy of the seized records as also to return the CPU so as to enable the petitioner to participate in the adjudication proceedings in an informed manner.
3. It is the petitioner’s case that the petitioner was neither provided the copy of the seized documents nor was the CPU returned to the petitioner. Subsequently, a notice under Section 74(1) of the said Act, of 2017 was issued calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the petitioner shall not be held liable for payment of tax on account of suppression.
4. Subsequently, a notice for personal hearing was issued to the petitioner. But the petitioner did not appear before the authorities on the said date.
5. However, the petitioner replied to the notice to show cause on August 6, 2024 thereby once again reiterating that the copies of the seized documents and the CPU may be returned to it. Ultimately, the order impugned was passed confirming the demand raised against the petitioner in the notice to show cause without affording any further opportunity of hearing to the petitioner upon receipt of the petitioner’s reply dated August 6, 2024 to the notice to show cause.
6. It is the petitioners case that neither the copies of the seized documents were made available to the petitioner nor was the CPU returned to it and as such the petitioner could neither properly participate in the adjudication proceeding not file a proper appeal. Hence the writ petition.
7. Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that despite repeated requests, the respondent GST Authorities did not furnish copies of the seized copies to the petitioner. The CPU of the petitioner that had been seized was also not supplied to the petitioner. That being the situation, the petitioner was unable to frame its defence appropriately and to meaningfully participate in the adjudication proceedings. It is submitted that not having done so the respondent authorities have acted in breach of the principles of natural justice.
8. A report in the form of an affidavit has been filed by the respondents.
9. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent CGST Authorities submits that the petitioner had been afforded an opportunity of hearing but the petitioner chose not to appear. He has also drawn attention of this court to a letter dated January 6, 2026 issued by the Dy. Commissioner of Revenue, WBGST (which is annexed to the Report) whereby the petitioner has been instructed to file a petition before the proper officer and to appear in person or through any authorized representative to collect the seized documents in original and the seized CPU from the proper officer.
10. It is further submitted that the petitioner had in course of the adjudication proceedings, been given opportunity to access the CPU and the documents along with his authorized representatives.
11. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the material on record.
12. It is not in dispute that the documents and the CPU that had been seized from the custody of the petitioner have not yet been returned to the petitioner.
13. In such view of the matter, the petitioner has been deprived of a fair opportunity to contest the adjudication proceedings inasmuch as the documents based on which the petitioner could have prepared the defence were not available to the petitioner. It is also clear that the petitioner has not got any meaningful opportunity of personal hearing.
14. There is sufficient force in the contention of the petitioner that without the documents and records the petitioner would also not be in a position to prefer a proper appeal before the appellate authority.
15. In such view of the matter, and for the ends of justice, the order impugned dated December 18, 2024 passed by the proper officer under Section 74 of the said Act of 2017 should not be allowed to be given effect to.
16. Since, the petitioner has not got any meaningful opportunity of participating in the hearing before the proper officer, the order impugned shall be treated as an additional show cause notice. The petitioner shall not be entitled to file a composite reply to the show cause notice earlier issued to the petitioner as well as the additional show cause notice (i.e. the impugned order dated 18th December, 2024 in terms of this order) within a period of two weeks from the date when the petitioner receives the seized documents or copies thereof and the seized CPU.
17. The petitioner shall approach the proper officer by way of an appropriate application as indicated in the notice dated January 6, 2026 (Annexure R/10 at page 37) of the report in the form of an affidavit within a week from date. Upon the petitioner so approaching the proper officer shall makeover the seized documents (or copies thereof) and the seized CPU to the petitioner within two days thereafter. The proper officer shall thereafter conclude the proceedings by passing appropriate orders upon affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law. It is clarified that this court has not gone into the merits of the matter and all points are left open to the adjudicating authority.
18. The writ petition being WPA 7574 of 2025 stands disposed of with the above observations.
19. There will be no order as to costs.
20. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied as expeditiously as possible.
Author Bio
