Calcutta HC Sets aside Order passed on Non Compliance of S. 107(12) of CGST Act [Read Order]

The Calcutta High Court has set aside the order passed on non compliance of section 107(12) of Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. The court found that the order impugned is unreasoned order and does not comply with the provisions of Section 107(12) of the said Act .

Sudarshan Sarker , the petitioner challenged the order dated 31 December 2024 passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the WBGST /CGST Act, 2017 ("said Act").

Mr. Ray, advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner seeks to assail the aforesaid order on two fold grounds. Primarily, the petitioner submits that the appellate authority had decided the matter ex parte without providing further opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner to present his case, especially since he is a 73 year old person.

Independent of the above, be submitted that having regard to the provisions contained under Section 107[12] of the said Act, the appellate authority was under an obligation to decide the points raised and adjudicate the appeal independent of the fact whether petitioner had appeared before the appellate authority. According to him, the decision rendered by the appellate authority is a non speaking order and has been issued in non-compliance of the provisions of Section 107(12) of the said Act.

Stay Updated with the Latest Audit Report Formats & Audit Trials Requirements!, Click Here

Ms. Mukherjee, advocate enters appearance on behalf of the CGST authorities. She would, however, submitted that in the instant case the petitioner was afforded with repeated opportunities to appear. The petitioner did. not avail such opportunities. Having thus, failed to take benefit of personal hearing, the petitioner cannot complain. of failure of natural justice. According to her, the appellate authority had rightly rejected the appeal and no interference is called for.

It would transpire that the petitioner was afforded with repeated opportunities of personal hearing. The petitioner did not avail the same. Mr. Ray would however, contend that the petitioner being an aged person and dependent upon tax consultant, had no fault in not availing the benefit of personal appearance since, the tax consultant who was entrusted with the duty to represent him did not appear.

Taking into consideration the fact that the order impugned is unreasoned order and does not comply with the provisions of Section 107(12) of the said Act and since there appears to be no reasons for rejecting the appeal on merit, the single bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the appellate authority for fresh adjudication on merit.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates