2025 (6) TMI 170 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and without adjourning the matter the proper officer has decided the case - HELD THAT - It appears that the show-cause notice had been served on the petitioners in Form DRC-1 on 31st October 2023. The petitioners did not respond to the said show-cause within the time specified on the contrary the petitioner had applied for an adjournment. Despite such adjournment being granted the petitioners chose not to file the response thereto and ultimately the adjudicating authority had decided the cause. Although lot of allegations have been made by the petitioners it is found that there is a multi tiered adjudication process available in the scheme of the said Act - the present writ petition has been filed on 18th October 2024 though the order impugned had been passed on 13th March 2024. There appears to be no appropriate explanation as regards the delay. Having regard thereto it is not inclined to entertain the present petition. However at the same time the petitioners cannot be rendered remediless. The writ petition is disposed of.

Summary

The Calcutta High Court, through Hon'ble Raja Basu Chowdhury, J., dismissed the writ petition challenging the order dated 13th September 2024 passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019. The petitioners contended that the adjudicating authority decided the case without affording them an opportunity of hearing. However, the Court noted that a show-cause notice (Form DRC-1) was duly served on 31st October 2023, the petitioners sought adjournment but failed to file any response, leading to the order. The Court emphasized the availability of a "multi tiered adjudication process" under the Act and declined to decide disputed factual questions at the writ stage, especially given the delay in filing the petition (filed on 18th October 2024 against an order dated 13th March 2024) without sufficient explanation. The Court held that the petitioners are not "rendered remediless" and directed that if they file an appeal within four weeks, complying with all formalities and applying for condonation of delay, the appellate authority shall "hear out and dispose of the appeal on merits" while noting the pendency of this writ petition. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.