Gauhati High Court
Skipper Limited vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 9 September, 2024
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010154872024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3919/2024
SKIPPER LIMITED
A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT,
1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 3A, LOUDAN STREET, 1ST
FLOOR, KOLKATA- 700017.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER- COMMERCIAL, PINAKI
SARKAR, AGED 46 YEARS, SON OF LATE PULIN KUMAR SARKAR,
RESIDENT OF BLOCK-1, N2, SANKARDEV GANGA NIWAS, NEAR
JALUKBARI DHABA, JALUKBARI, GUWAHATI- 781014, DISTRICT-
KAMRUP(M), ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM,
FINANCE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT,
DISPUR-06, ASSAM.
2:THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX
KAR BHAWAN
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
3:THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX
GUWAHATI
ZONE-C
KAR BHAWAN
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
Page No.# 2/3
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. S. Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Gogoi, Standing Counsel
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
Date : 09.09.2024 Heard Mr. R. S. Mishra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents.
2. This Court had issued notice on 07.08.2024 and asked the Respondents to apprise this Court on two aspects of the matter i.e. as to whether the order under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act, 2017 have been passed and whether any opportunity of hearing was sought for by the petitioner prior to the passing of the said order (if any) and if so, whether any opportunity of hearing was given to the Petitioner.
3. The Respondents have filed their affidavit wherein there is no clear statement to the effect that there is an order passed. What has been mentioned in the said affidavit is that after taking into account the reply so submitted by the Petitioner, the summary of the order in DRC 07 was issued on 04.01.2024.
4. Mr. R. S. Mishra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner referring to Rule 142(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 submitted that the DRC 07 shall be a summary of the order and he therefore submitted that there has to be an order to be passed in pursuant to Section 73(9) Page No.# 3/3 of the CGST Act, 2017. In addition to that, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the affidavit so filed by the Respondents wherein at paragraph No.7, it has been categorically admitted that though the petitioner sought for an opportunity of personal hearing, the same was not granted inadvertently. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner further drew the attention of this Court to Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 which mandates that the personal hearing is a statutory requirement.
5. Taking into account the above, this Court is of the opinion that certain interim directions are required to be passed in the instant case.
6. Accordingly, this Court directs the Respondent Authorities not to take any coercive measure upon the petitioner on the basis of the summary of the order dated 04.01.2024.
7. The Respondents are directed to file an additional affidavit giving specific details as to whether there is an order passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act, 2017 and if not, to clarify so.
8. List the matter on 17.09.2024.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant