Case Law Details
Piku Saha Vs State of West Bengal & Ors. (Calcutta HC, Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri)
Introduction: In a significant legal victory, Piku Saha has secured a favorable ruling from the Calcutta High Court, setting aside an unfair judgment and order dated 18.11.2023 in WPA/1864/2023 (Piku Saha –Vs.- The State of West Bengal & Ors.). The appellant, engaged in works contracts and registered under the WBGST Act/CGST Act, 2017, had filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 9.12.2022 under Section 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The court, after hearing arguments from Mr. Himangshu Kumar Ray, the learned Counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Subir Kumar Saha, the learned Counsel for the State respondents, found in favor of Piku Saha.
Background: For the financial year 2021-22, a show cause notice dated 01.09.2022 under Section 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act was issued to Piku Saha by the proper officer, Assistant Commissioner, Jalpaiguri, West Bengal. The notice required the appellant to appear for a personal hearing either in person or through an authorized representative on a date, time, and venue mentioned in the attached table. However, crucially, the table did not specify the date, time, and venue of the personal hearing. Subsequently, an order dated 9.12.2022 was passed under Section 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act, creating a liability of WBGST, CGST, and a penalty totaling Rs. 14,64,673.60/-
It was admitted by the State respondents that the proper officer did not afford an opportunity of hearing to the appellant before passing the impugned adjudication order/assessment order for the financial year 2021-22. This non-compliance with the statutory mandate under Section 75(4) of the WBGST/CGST Act became a pivotal point in the legal battle.
Court’s Analysis: The Calcutta High Court, drawing parallels with a similar case decided on the same day (MAT/205/2023), highlighted the importance of affording an opportunity of hearing as mandated by Section 75(4) of the WBGST/CGST Act. The court emphasized that the absence of compliance with this statutory mandate renders the order unsustainable. Given the admitted non-compliance in this case, the court ruled in favor of Piku Saha.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
