Bengal Engineering vs State of West Bengal & Ors
The Division Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the Adjudication Order dated 10 December 2020 and the Appellate Order dated 02 January 2025.
The Court held that:
- The Adjudicating Authority confirmed a tax liability exceeding the amount specified in the Show Cause Notice, in violation of Section 75(7) of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The provision imposes a jurisdictional ceiling and prohibits confirmation of an amount higher than that stated in the notice. The excess demand rendered the order ultra vires and unsustainable.
- The failure to grant a personal hearing despite a specific request violated Section 75(4) of the Act. The provision mandates that a personal hearing shall be granted where requested. The ex parte order passed without granting such hearing constituted a breach of principles of natural justice and was held to be a fatal infirmity.
- The cumulative effect of breach of Section 75(7), violation of Section 75(4), and initiation of parallel proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 rendered the assessment fundamentally flawed.
The Court remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for de novo adjudication from the stage of reply to the Show Cause Notice, directing grant of fresh personal hearing and strict compliance with Section 75(7).
Cases Referred by Court:
- Kaveri Telecom Products Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (2018)
Other Case Law
Armour Security (India) Ltd. vs Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate & Anr.
Whether issuance of summons under Section 70 CGST Act amounts to “initiation of proceedings” under Section 6(2)(b) and bars parallel action by another authority.
Facts :The petitioner company received a show cause notice under Section 73 CGST...
Read MoreK-9 Enterprises vs. State of Karnataka
Legality of blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) under Rule 86A of CGST Rules, 2017 without pre-decisional hearing and without independent application of mind.
BackgroundThe appellants — GST-registered businesses dealing in lead, lead scr...
Read MoreC.C.E., Bhubaneswar-I vs M/s. Champdany Industries Limited
Classification of carpets containing jute, cotton and polypropylene under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985—whether classifiable as jute carpets or under residuary heading.
Court Decision:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue and ...
Read More