Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4843 Cal
Judgement Date : 28 July, 2022
28.07.2022.
p.b.
Sl. No.8.
W.P.A. 15794 of 2022
Bijoy Das
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Pranit Bag,
Mr anil Choudhury.
........for the petitioner.
Mr. A. Ray,
Mr. T. M. Siddiqui,
Mr. D. Ghosh,
Mr. D. Saju.
.........for the State.
Mr. Sudipta Maiti.
.........for the UOI.
Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties.
By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the
impugned intimation dated 28th May, 2022 being
Annexure P-3 to the writ petition which is an intimation
that the Input Tax Credit has been blocked, on the ground
that the said intimation of blocking of petitioner's ECL was
without any recorded reason and petitioner further
challenges the impugned notice dated 27th June, 2022
being Annexure P-14 to the writ petition under Section 46
of the WBGST Act, 2017. Petitioner submits that in the
facts and circumstances of this case, the impugned
intimation dated 28th May, 2022 is not sustainable in law
and in support of such contention, he relies on a decision
of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of (Dee Vee
2
Projects Ltd. A Public Limited Company, through its
Director Sumit Ranjan Das So Bikash Ranjan Das Vs.
Government of Maharashtra, Department of Goods and
Services Tax Through office of the Deputy Commissioner
State Tax (E-006) Nagpur Division through its
Commissioner & Ors.) reported in 2022 SCC Online Bom
304.
Mr. Siddiqui, learned Additional Government Pleader
opposes this writ petition by submitting the relevant
record to show that at the time of taking impugned
coercive action of blocking of ECL of the petitioner
sufficient recorded reasons were there and he relies on an
unreported order of this Court dated 30th June, 2022 in
WPA 11122 of 2022 (Kinaram Vintrade Private Limited Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.).
Considering the facts and circumstances of this
case, I am of the view that this matter cannot be disposed
of without calling for affidavits because interpretation of
two orders, one of Bombay High Court and one of this
Court are involved apart from other legal issues and facts.
Let the respondents file affidavit in opposition within
two weeks; petitioner to file reply thereto, if any, within
one week thereafter.
The matter shall appear for final hearing after four
weeks.
In the meantime, petitioner shall file the objection to
the recorded reason which has been furnished by Mr.
Siddiqui to the petitioner, for blocking the petitioner' s ECL
within seven days and if such objection is filed by the
petitioner, the same shall be considered and disposed of
by the respondent concerned in accordance with law and
by passing a reasoned and speaking order and after giving
an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or its
authorized representatives and after taking into
consideration the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble
Bombay High Court within one week from the date of
receipt of such objection and in the meantime, petitioner
shall be allowed to operate the ECL on condition that the
disputed amount in question will not be availed by the
petitioner. No adjournment shall be granted to the
petitioner at the time of hearing for disposal of the
aforesaid objection to be filed by the petitioner.
The respondent no.3 has been impleaded by her
name, instead of her designation which should stand
expunged and respondent no.3 will remain as a party
respondent by her designation.
(Md. Nizamuddin, J.)
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!