Sunday, 17, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Bijoy Das vs Union Of India & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 4843 Cal

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4843 Cal
Judgement Date : 28 July, 2022

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Bijoy Das vs Union Of India & Ors on 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.)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter