Mehndihasan Rahemtulla Hariyani VS Deputy Commission of Revenue

Commissioner of Revenue. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without affording any opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice. Moreover, it was argued that the petitioner, being the proprietor of M/s Akash Trading Co., was not even a party to the proceedings initiated against Ashwani Sharma, the driver/person-in-charge. The petitioner emphasized that imposing such a substantial tax and penalty without proper notice and opportunity to present their case was arbitrary and unjust.

The High Court considered the submissions and observed that the principles of natural justice require that a person against whom any adverse order is sought to be passed must be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard. In this case, the petitioner was not given any such opportunity before the order was passed against them. Furthermore, the petitioner was not even a party to the proceedings against Ashwani Sharma.

The court also noted that the proceedings under Section 129 of the West Bengal Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 were initiated against the driver/person-in-charge, not against the proprietorship concern, M/s Akash Trading Co. Therefore, imposing tax and penalty on the petitioner, who was not a party to the proceedings, was unjustified.

Consequently, the High Court quashed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Revenue and directed the authority to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing any further order. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and ensuring that all parties involved have a fair chance to present their case before any adverse action is taken against them.

The Deputy Commissioner of Revenue, Alipurduar Zone, acting under the Bureau of Investigation, commenced proceedings against Ashwani Sharma, the alleged driver/person-in-charge of a specific vehicle, under Section 129 of the West Bengal Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. Following a hearing, Sharma was slapped with a tax and penalty amounting to Rs. 1,45,320 each.

In response, M/s Akash Trading Co., the petitioner’s proprietorship concern, filed an appeal under Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 against the aforementioned order. However, the appellate authority, the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Siliguri Circle, Siliguri, contended that since the adjudication order targeted Ashwani Sharma, the driver, the petitioner, as the consignee of the goods, lacked the standing to challenge it. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The petitioner contested this decision through a writ petition, challenging the order of the appellate authority dated October 27, 2021. The petitioner argued that the appellate authority erred in denying them the right to appeal.

The petitioner’s stance finds support in Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which grants appeal rights to “any person aggrieved” by decisions or orders made under the Act. Despite the adjudication being directed at the driver/in-charge of the vehicle, the petitioner’s concern, as the consignee, had legitimate grounds to feel aggrieved by the adjudicating authority’s decision.

In essence, the petitioner asserts that their stake in the goods involved warrants them the status of an aggrieved party and thus, the right to appeal.

The Deputy Commissioner of Revenue, Alipurduar Zone, initiated legal proceedings under Section 129 of the West Bengal Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, against Ashwani Sharma, the alleged driver/person-in-charge of a relevant vehicle. Following a hearing, the authority imposed tax and penalties amounting to Rs.1,45,320 each on Sharma. M/s Akash Trading Co., owned by the petitioner, challenged this order by filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Act against the Deputy Commissioner’s decision. However, the appellate authority, the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Siliguri Circle, declined to entertain the appeal, arguing that as the order was directed at Sharma, the driver, the petitioner, as the consignee of the goods, had no standing to challenge it.

The petitioner contested this decision through a writ petition, arguing that the appellate authority’s refusal to allow the appeal was unjustified. They cited Section 107 of the Act, which allows “any person aggrieved” by a decision or order under the Act to appeal to the appellate authority within the specified time frame. Despite the adjudication being against the driver, the petitioner, as the consignee, had a valid reason to be aggrieved by the decision.

The court agreed with the petitioner, finding that the appellate authority’s decision was unfounded. They ruled that the order dated December 30, 2021, was unsustainable and set it aside. The appellate authority was instructed to hear the petitioner’s appeal in accordance with the law and dispose of it within one month of the court’s order.

The case, WPA 927 of 2022, was therefore disposed of. All parties involved were instructed to act upon the court’s order, which could be downloaded from the official website.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:                                      

GST Case Law: