2025 (5) TMI 542 - HC - GST

Liability to pay interest under Section 50(1) of the WBGST Act 2017 and CGST Act 2017 for intervening period between the date of order and date of payment of the tax - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the order impugned in the writ petition is an appealable order but the fact remains that the order was an ex parte order and the petitioner could not raise his points before the adjudicating authority for the reasons beyond his control. The issues raised by the petitioner in this writ petition requires an adjudication on facts as well the same cannot be decided in this writ petition by way of exchange of affidavits. This Court is therefore inclined to afford a last opportunity to the petitioner to present his case both on facts as well as on law before the adjudicating authority. Only for such reason this Court is inclined to interfere with the order impugned. The order impugned as set aside. Since the petitioner did not file any reply to the show-cause notice this Court gives opportunity to the petitioner to file a reply to the show-cause notice on or before April 21 2025.

Summary

The Calcutta High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order dated December 15, 2023, which held the petitioner liable to pay interest under Section 50(1) of the WBGST Act, 2017 and CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner, a partnership firm, contended that due to the illness of the responsible partner, it was unrepresented at the adjudication hearing and disputed the bifurcation of tax liability between VAT and GST, also challenging the adjudicating authority's jurisdiction.The State countered that proper notice was served and the order was a final, appealable order which the petitioner failed to appeal within the limitation period, having approached the writ court instead. Recognizing the order was ex parte and that factual adjudication was necessary, the Court granted the petitioner a final opportunity to file a reply to the show-cause notice by April 21, 2025, and directed the adjudicating authority to rehear the matter, pass a reasoned order, and communicate it to the petitioner.The Court clarified it did not address the merits, including the applicability of the Notification dated 16.08.2017, leaving the adjudicating authority free to decide the case uninfluenced by this order.