Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ntc Industries Ltd vs State Tax Officer on 7 June, 2022
Item no. 04
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam
And
The Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
MAT 557 of 2022
with
IA No. CAN 1 of 2022
NTC Industries Ltd.
vs.
State Tax Officer, Karagpur Zone & ors.
Appearance:
For the Appellants : Mr. Anil Kumar Dugar
Mr. Rajarshi Chatterjee
Mr. Gobinda Dey
Mr. Gobind Jethalia
For the Respondents : Mr. A. Ray
(State) Mr. T. M. Siddiqui
Mr. Debasish Ghosh
Heard on : 07.06.2022
Judgment on : 07.06.2022
T.S. Sivagnanam J.:
This intra court appeal by the appellant is directed against
an order dated 07.04.2022 passed in WPA 6146 of 2022 filed by the
appellant challenging the order dated 31.03.2022 passed under Section
129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with
relevant provisions of West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2022,
Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Goods and Services
Compensation to States Tax Act, 2017. The learned Single Judge has
dismissed the writ petition by directing the appellant availing alternative
remedy. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before us.
We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
We are not inclined to go into the merits of the matter but
we are convinced that the arguments made by the learned counsel for
the appellant that there has been violation of principles of natural
justice. We say so because of the fact that the appellant has been
granted seven days time to submit its reply to the show cause notice
dated 27.03.2022. The appellant's case is that they were not
communicated with the same on 27.03.2022 but received the same only
on 29.03.2022. Even going by the date of the show cause notice dated
27.03.2022, the appellant had time to submit its reply on or before
02.04.2022. However, the impugned order was passed on 31.03.2022
i.e. before the stipulated time limit. We find that in the order dated
31.03.2022 in paragraph 7, the Officer has referred to an objection filed
by the appellant and certain reasons have been set out as to why the
objections are not acceptable.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
submitted that no objections were filed to the show cause notice dated
27.03.2022 and what has been referred to was a letter which was given
at the first instance when the appellant was called upon to explain the
nature of transaction and movement of goods. In any event, when an
opportunity is given to show cause it should be an effective opportunity
and not an empty formality. The interest of the revenue has been
sufficiently safeguarded as the goods have been released on furnishing
of bank guarantee and bond. Therefore, we are of the considered view
that adequate opportunity should be granted to the appellant and
thereafter the authority should take a decision in the matter.
In view of the above, the order passed in the writ petition is
set aside. Consequently, the order dated 31.03.2022 is set aside. We
direct the appellant to treat the order dated 31.03.2022 as a show cause
notice and submit its objections/reply within ten days from the date of
receipt of the server copy of this order. On receipt of the reply, the
concerned authority shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to
the authorized representative of the appellant and pass a fresh order on
merit and in accordance with law. Till orders are passed by the
respondent authority in terms of the above direction, the bank
guarantee shall be kept alive and shall abide by the order that may be
passed pursuant to the above direction.
For the reasons given hereinabove, the appeal stands
allowed. Consequently, the connected application also stands disposed
of.
(T. S. Sivagnanam, J.)
(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)
RP/Amitava (AR. CT.)
