Ankit Agarwal VS The Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Jorasanko Charge

The petitioners have filed an application dated November 3, 2020, and they seek its consideration in a time-bound manner. This application appears to be pivotal to their case.

The current legal proceeding is an intra-court appeal lodged by the writ petitioners against an order issued on November 29, 2022, in WPA No.24899 of 2022. According to this order, the writ petition was scheduled for final disposal in February 2023, without any interim order being granted. This decision has left the appellants dissatisfied and aggrieved. Consequently, they have initiated the present appeal to contest the absence of an interim order in the earlier ruling

The current legal proceedings stem from an application dated November 3, 2020, filed by the petitioner, which requests prompt action within a specified time frame. This appeal before the court arises from an intra-Court appeal against an order dated November 29, 2022, in WPA No.24899 of 2022. In that order, the court directed the writ petition to be scheduled for final resolution in February 2023 but did not grant any interim orders. The appellants, feeling aggrieved by this decision, have initiated the present appeal.

During the legal proceedings, Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee, representing the appellants, has presented their case comprehensively, with support from Mr. Sukalpa Seal, an advocate, and Mr. Debasish Ghosh, the standing counsel representing the respondents or the State. The court has heard these arguments in detail, setting the stage for a thorough examination of the issues at hand

This intra-court appeal pertains to a writ petition filed by the appellants against an order dated November 29, 2022, issued in WPA No.24899 of 2022. In the said order, the writ petition was scheduled for final disposal in February 2023 without granting any interim relief. Dissatisfied with this decision, the appellants have lodged the present appeal.

During the proceedings, the court extensively heard arguments presented by Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee, the learned counsel for the appellants, along with assistance from Mr. Sukalpa Seal, a learned advocate, and Mr. Debasish Ghosh, the learned standing counsel for the respondents/State.

The central issue under consideration in this appeal is whether the cancellation of the registration granted to the appellants under the provisions of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax (WBGST) Act, 2017, was justified, and whether the appellate authority was correct in affirming the cancellation order.

Upon careful examination of all the relevant documents submitted in the appeal, the court found that the show cause notice issued to the appellants lacked substance and was entirely vague. The appellants were not adequately informed about the alleged fraud or willful misstatement attributed to them. Despite the appellants denying these allegations, the authority proceeded to confirm the proposal for cancellation in a single-line order without providing any reasoning or justification for its decision.

This intra-court appeal lodged by the petitioners is in response to the order dated November 29, 2022, issued in WPA No. 24899 of 2022. The order directed the writ petition to be listed for final disposal in February 2023 without granting any interim relief. Discontented by this decision, the appellants initiated the current appeal.

During the proceedings, Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee, representing the appellants, was duly assisted by Mr. Sukalpa Seal and Mr. Debasish Ghosh, representing the respondents or the State. The primary issue under scrutiny in this appeal pertains to the justification of the cancellation of the registration granted to the appellants under the WBGST Act, 2017, and whether the appellate authority rightfully upheld the cancellation order.

Upon thorough examination of the evidence presented, it was observed that the show cause notice served to the appellants lacked substantial content and clarity. The appellants were not adequately informed about the alleged fraud or willful misstatements attributed to them. Despite the appellants’ denial of these allegations, the authority proceeded to confirm the cancellation without providing sufficient reasoning.

Subsequently, when the appellants sought revocation of the cancellation, their plea was dismissed through a non-elaborate order. Upon further appeal to the appellate authority, additional facts were introduced, and a detailed order was issued. However, it is noted that while an appellate or administrative body is expected to provide comprehensive reasoning, the original authority’s lack of adequate justification should have prompted the appellate authority to remand the matter instead of attempting to validate the order with fresh facts.

In conclusion, the original authority’s failure to provide reasoned justification necessitated a remand to the original authority rather than attempting to validate the order with additional facts.

The present case involves an intra-Court appeal filed by the writ petitioners against an order dated November 29, 2022, issued in WPA No. 24899 of 2022. This order directed the writ petition to be listed for final disposal in February 2023 without granting any interim relief. The appellants, feeling aggrieved by the lack of interim relief, have filed this appeal.

During the hearing, the court extensively listened to arguments presented by Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee, counsel for the appellants, along with the assistance of Mr. Sukalpa Seal, an advocate, and Mr. Debasish Ghosh, standing counsel for the respondents/state.

The central issue for consideration in this appeal is whether the cancellation of the registration granted to the appellants under the provisions of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax (WBGST) Act, 2017, was justified, and whether the appellate authority was correct in upholding this cancellation.

Upon thorough examination of the material documents, the court found that the show cause notice issued to the appellants lacked substance and clarity regarding the alleged fraud or willful misstatement. Despite the appellants’ denial of the allegations, the cancellation proposal was confirmed without providing any reasoning.

Subsequently, the appellants’ request for revocation of the cancellation was rejected without proper explanation. Although certain fresh facts were presented during the appeal to the appellate authority, it was observed that the original authority’s order lacked reasoning. In such cases, the appellate authority should have set aside the order and remanded the matter to the original authority.

However, the court noted that the issue had become academic, as the appellants had applied for an amendment to their registration, which was duly granted. The amendment incorporated the new address, resolving any discrepancies in the registration document.

Consequently, the court concluded that the registration granted to the appellants should be restored. It acknowledged the prompt filing of returns and timely remittance of taxes and other levies by the appellants, as stated by their advocate.

In summary, the court ruled in favor of the appellants, ordering the restoration of their registration based on the aforementioned reasons.

Download PDF:
Ankit Agarwal

For Reference Visit:
Calcutta High Court

Read Another Case Law:
GST Case Law