Consultant’s failure to inform petitioners of Show Cause Notice on portal.

The Calcutta High Court has set aside the case under Section 73(9) Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, as the consultant failed to inform the petitioner of the Show Cause Notice (SCN) on the portal, and has remanded the case for fresh consideration, noting that the consultant left the job without proper communication, thereby giving the petitioners another opportunity to present their case and explain the situation to the proper officer. The petitioners, M/s Essel Kitchenware Limited & Anr contested an order dated August 29, 2023, issued under Section 73(9) of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax ( WBGST ) and Central Goods and Services Tax ( CGST ) Act, 2017, pertaining to the financial year 2017-18. The petitioners argued that Petitioner No. 1 had received a show cause notice on March 9, 2023, under Section 73(1) of the CGST Act. However, they claimed that they were unable to access the notice on the GST portal because their consultant, who was responsible for handling such matters, failed to convey this information and subsequently left the job without notifying them. Get a Copy ofGST Manual (Acts & Rules), Click here The petitioners explained that they only became aware of the order dated August 29, 2023, after hiring a new consultant. During the proceedings, the petitioners’ advocate, Mr. Kanodia, pointed out that an error had occurred during the filing of GSTR-3B for the financial year 2017-18, where Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) on Import of Goods amounting to Rs. 2.94 crores was mistakenly reported in the wrong table. The adjudication order noted a discrepancy, stating that the ITC on Import of Goods in GSTR-2A exceeded the amount availed by the petitioners in the correct table by Rs. 2.93 crores. The petitioners asserted that they had rectified this mistake in their annual returns filed in Form GSTR-9, but due to their failure to present this before the proper officer, it was not considered. Get a Copy ofGST Manual (Acts & Rules), Click here Mr. Siddiqui, representing the State, argued that the order in question was appealable and that the petitioners could approach the appellate authority for redress. After hearing the arguments from both sides and reviewing the evidence, the court acknowledged that there appeared to be a genuine error on the part of the petitioners, which had not been adequately considered by the proper officer. Noting the consultant’s departure without proper communication, the court decided that the petitioners should be given another opportunity to present their case and explain the situation to the proper officer. Get a Copy ofGST Manual (Acts & Rules), Click here Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury of the single bench set aside the order dated August 29, 2023, and remanded the matter back to the proper officer for reconsideration. The petitioners were granted 10 days to file their response, and the proper officer was directed to dispose of the proceedings by passing a new order under Section 73(9) within four weeks of the personal hearing. Additionally, the court ordered the petitioners to pay Rs. 50,000 to the State Legal Services Authority within 10 days and submit proof of payment during the hearing. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.