Soumyendu Bikash Jana Vs Union of India & Ors. (Calcutta High Court)
In the case of Soumyendu Bikash Jana vs. Union of India & Ors., the Calcutta High Court addressed a procedural lapse in GST adjudication. The petitioner challenged an order passed by the adjudicating authority without being granted a mandatory personal hearing, as required under Section 75(4) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the show cause notice issued for the financial year 2017-18 (in Form GST DRC-01) included “N.A.” under the personal hearing section. Despite the statutory mandate, the adjudicating authority concluded the matter and passed an order on December 29, 2023, without affording an opportunity for personal representation.
The petitioner relied on precedent judgments, including the Calcutta High Court’s ruling in Goutam Bhowmik vs. State of West Bengal and the Allahabad High Court’s judgment in Bharat Mint and Allied Chemicals v. Commissioner of Commercial-Tax. Both cases underscored the requirement for a personal hearing in cases where adverse decisions are contemplated, even if the affected party has not explicitly requested one. Section 75(4) mandates that the proper officer must provide this opportunity to ensure procedural fairness.
The Calcutta High Court found that the adjudicating authority’s failure to grant a personal hearing violated the statutory requirements. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order dated December 29, 2023, and remanded the case to the proper officer for re-adjudication, directing compliance with the legal requirement of a personal hearing.
