Sujoy Burdhan vs Assistant Commissioner
2022 Latest Caselaw 6376 Cal

Item no. 14


                IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                 APPELLATE SIDE

Present:
The Hon'ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam
              And
The Hon'ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya


                                MAT 1352 of 2022
                                      with
                              IA No. CAN 1 of 2022

                         Sujoy Burdhan
                               vs.
 Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Bureau of Investigation
      (South Bengal), Barrackpore Zone (W.B.) & ors.


Appearance:
For the Appellants        :   Mr. Siddhartha Sankar Sengupta
                              Mr. Sumit Ghosh
                              Mr. Souradeep Majumder

For the State             :   Mr. A. Ray, ld. G.P.
                              Md. T. M. Siddiqui, ld. A.G.P.
                              Mr. D. Ghosh
                              Mr. D. Sahu


Heard on                  : 08.09.2022

Judgment on               : 08.09.2022


T.S. Sivagnanam J.:

              This intra court appeal filed by the writ petitioner is directed

against the order passed on 11.08.2022 in WPA 17726/2022. The writ
                                        2




petition   was   filed   challenging   the   order   passed   by   the   Joint

Commissioner of SGST rejecting the appeal only on the ground that the

certified copy of the assessment order has not been filed.                The

appellant's case is that they have not been furnished the certified copy

and they have obtained the certified copy of certain other documents but

not the summary of the order.

            In any event, we need not to go into the said controversy as

what was communicated to the appellant was only the summary of the

order dated 01.10.2021 and no speaking order under Section 79(4) of

the WBGST Act has been communicated to the appellant. Therefore, in

order to have an effective opportunity to file an appeal, the appellant

should be made known of the reasons on which the original authority

had passed the order. Therefore, we are of the view that appropriate

directions in this regard can be issued.

            Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

appellant had not retained the original certified copy of the order and

the finding rendered by the learned Single Judge is factually incorrect.

That apart, it is pointed out that certain observations have been made

against the learned advocate of the appellant and cost has also been

imposed.    As already pointed out by the appellant, the appellant has

been informed about the summary of the order dated 01.10.2021 and no

speaking order has been served on the appellant. This factual position

has not been disputed by the respondent.

In such circumstances, there is no reason for making any

observation neither against the petitioner's conduct nor against the

lawyer who had been engaged by the appellant. In fact, the observations

made against the lawyer are not sustainable since the said lawyer was

not a party to the proceedings nor the same was the "lis" before the

learned writ court. Therefore, such observations need to be eschewed.

If both the observations are eschewed, then there is no case made out

for imposing the cost.

In the light of the above, the appeal stands allowed.

Consequently, the connected application also stands disposed of. The

order passed in the writ petition is set aside and the writ petition is

disposed of by directing the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Bureau

of Investigation (South Bengal), Barrackpore to communicate the

speaking order dated 01.10.2021 within a period of two weeks from the

date of receipt of the server copy of this order. On receipt of the same,

the appellant is granted three weeks time to file statutory appeal before

the appellate authority which shall be entertained in accordance with

law and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing, the appellate

authority shall pass a reasoned order on merits and in accordance with

law. The appellant is required to comply with the pre-deposit condition

as provided under the statute.

In the light of the reasons given hereinabove, the

observations made by the learned Single Judge against the writ

petitioner, against the lawyer and imposition of cost, all stand set aside.

Since the appellant cannot file on-line appeal petition, the

appellant is permitted to file the appeal petition as a hard copy which

shall be taken on file of the appellate authority.

No costs.

(T. S. Sivagnanam, J.)

(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)

Raja Pal/Amitava (AR. CT.)