2023 (9) TMI 1671 - HC - GST

Validity of adjudication order - Petitioner s representation not properly considered and dealt with - difference between non-consideration of the objection/ submission - Constitutional validity of retrospective amendment to Rule 61 of the WBGST Rules 2017 - HELD THAT - Learned Additional Government Pleader submits that before passing the impugned order ample opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and principles of natural justice was observed and the impugned order contained detailed reasons and discussion. If petitioner is not satisfied with the sufficiency of the reasons recorded by the Adjudicating Authority which is based on findings and evidence. This court in exercise of Constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot act as an Appellate Authority and substitute the reasoning and findings of the Adjudicating Authority with its own. Furthermore the impugned order is an appealable order and it is not a case of the petitioner that the alternative remedy available to the petitioner is not speedy and efficacious. Following the abovementioned reasons this court does not inclined to interfere with the impugned adjudication order. However since Constitutional validity of retrospective amendment to Rule 61 of the WBGST Rules 2017 has been challenged in this writ petition this writ petition will be heard only on this issue upon exchange of affidavits by the parties.

Summary

The Calcutta High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order under the WBGST Act, 2017. The court held that it cannot substitute the reasoning of the Adjudicating Authority and emphasized the availability of an appeal process. The petition will proceed solely on the issue of the constitutional validity of a retrospective amendment, with affidavits to be exchanged. The respondents must file an affidavit-in-opposition within four weeks, and the petitioner must respond within two weeks thereafter. The matter is scheduled for final hearing in December 2023, and parties are instructed to prepare short written notes of arguments. The court clarified that the pendency of the writ petition does not prevent the petitioner from filing an appeal against the adjudication order within 30 days.