Case Summary
Case Title: Madhusudan Banik v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Court: Calcutta High Court
Petition Number: WPA 30434 of 2024
Date of Judgment: 10 February 2025
Category: Appellate proceedings under GST – Natural Justice / Opportunity of Hearing
Relevant Sections: Section 107(9) & Section 107(12) of the CGST Act, 2017
Facts (Para 1–2, 5 of order)
The petitioner challenged the order of the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act, contending that adequate opportunity of hearing was not given and that the order was not a speaking one. Reliance was placed on Section 107(9), which mandates that adjournments, though limited to three, must be recorded in writing, and Section 107(12), which requires reasoned orders.
Questions before the Court (Para 1–3)
-
Whether the appellate authority failed to grant the mandated three adjournments and proper hearing under Section 107(9).
-
Whether the appellate order suffered from lack of reasoning, thereby violating Section 107(12) and principles of natural justice.
Observations (Para 5–7)
The Court observed that the appellate authority had adhered to Section 107(9) by providing opportunities of hearing. The order also reflected consideration of all grounds raised by the petitioner. The requirement under Section 107(12) of providing reasons was duly met. The Court found no evidence of violation of natural justice or procedural fairness.
Judgment (Para 7–8)
The Court held that there was no procedural irregularity or denial of hearing. Since the appellate order had addressed the petitioner’s contentions and satisfied statutory requirements, no interference was warranted. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed without costs.
Table of Cases Referred
| Case Referred | Court’s Observation / Verdict |
|---|---|
| None specific cited | The judgment primarily turned on interpretation of Section 107(9) and 107(12) of CGST Act without relying on external precedents. |
Between Fine Lines (Practical takeaway)
This judgment underscores that appellate proceedings under GST will not be interfered with by writ courts if the record shows that the statutory limit of adjournments was adhered to, hearings were granted, and the order disclosed reasons. Taxpayers must ensure diligent participation in appellate proceedings, as courts will not condone challenges merely on allegations of inadequate hearing unless proven from the record.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
 and passed a reasoned order under Section 107(12).){kind=link}