20. 10.09.2025 Court No.05. (Pritam) WPA 18033 of 2025 Torrent Minerals Private Limited & Anr. -Vs.- The Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Tamluk Charge, WBGST & Ors. Mr. Ankit Kanodia, Ms. Megha Agarwal, Mr. Piyush Khaitan. ...for the petitioners. Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty, Mr. Saptak Sanyal. ....for the State. 1. Challenging the order passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) dated 3rd July, 2024 for the assessment year April 2019 - March 2020, the instant writ petition has been filed. 2. One of the issues canvassed by Mr. Kanodia, learned advocate representing the petitioners is that the Proper Officer despite being obliged in terms of Section 75(4) of the said Act has failed to afford the petitioners an opportunity of being heard. 3. Independent of the aforesaid, it is submitted that the aforesaid issue forming subject matter of the order had previously been taken up by the Bureau of Investigation in a proceeding under Section 67 of the said Act. By a final report dated 30th August, 2021, the above 2 proceedings were concluded. He would submit that admittedly, the petitioners had imported certain goods upon payment of IGST. However, by reasons of the error committed by the petitioners‟ accountant while claiming ITC, the petitioners had included the claim for IGST and Cess in the column “all other ITC”. Mr. Kanodia, learned advocate representing the petitioners would further contend that the above explanation provided by the petitioners had already been accepted by the Bureau of Investigation. In this context, he places reliance on the report dated 30th August, 2021. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the show-cause dated 13th May, 2024 has been issued. The respondents cannot be permitted to reopen a concluded issue. 4. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents at the very outset, submitted that the petitioners in the instant case were afforded repeated opportunities to respond to the show-cause by the Proper officer. Though, a pre-show-cause notice in the form of DRC01A was issued on 22nd January 2024, the petitioners chose not to respond to the same. Still later, when the show-cause in Form DRC01 was served on the petitioners on 13th May, 2024, the petitioners once again chose not to respond. Even thereafter, the Proper Officer did not pass the order. The Proper Officer had in fact served a further notice dated 13th June, 2025 and subsequently, the adjudication order dated 3rd July, 3 2025 was passed. Even after an adjudication order was passed, there has been no challenge to the adjudication order before the Appellate Authority. The writ petition was also not filed within the time prescribed for filing of the appeal. Belatedly, this instant writ petition has been filed. The same should be rejected with cost. 5. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and on considering the materials on record, I find that admittedly in this case, the petitioners were served not only with the pre-show-cause, the show-cause notice was also served. Even thereafter, the Proper Officer had served a further notice upon the petitioners. 6. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the petitioners had chosen not to respond to the same. However, at the same time, one cannot be lose sight of is the fact that the Bureau of Investigation had already made enquiry in the matter under Section 67 of the said Act and had accepted the explanation given by the petitioners with regard to the availment of ITC/claim of ITC, IGST and Cess under the head “all other ITC” instead of „import of goods‟ tab and such issue appears to have been resolved by the petitioners by the making payments as noted therein. However, in the instant case, since the petitioners chose not to respond to the aforesaid pre show-cause, show-cause, this aspect could not be considered. 4 7. Independent to the above, I find that having regard to the provisions contained in Section 75(4) of the said Act, the Proper Officer is obliged to afford an opportunity of hearing when an adverse order is contemplated. The same had not been done in this case. However, taking an overall view of the matter and in the interest of justice, the matter needs to be remanded back to the Proper Officer but at the same time taking note of the fact that the petitioners had chosen not to respond to the pre- show-cause, show-cause and the subsequent notice and have even approached this Court belatedly, the petitioners should be put to terms. As such by directing the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.20 lakh (Rupees Twenty lakhs) only, I do hereby set aside the order dated 3rd July, 2024. 8. In the event the aforesaid sum is deposited with the respondents within a period of four weeks from date, the payment of Rs.20 lakh shall be retained to the credit of the proceedings and thereupon the Proper Officer shall hear out and dispose of the petition on merits by offering the petitioners a further opportunity to respond to the show-cause and if such response is filed within a week therefrom, the Proper officer shall consider the same and dispose of the proceeding in accordance with law, by offering an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 9. That the Proper Officer shall decide the issue within a period of 12 weeks from the date of filing of the response 5 by the petitioners or in the event no response is filed, within 12 weeks from the date on which the time to file the response is over. 10. It is made clear that in the event the petitioners do not comply with the direction for making payment, the benefit of this order will not ensure to the petitioners and this writ petition shall automatically stand dismissed. 11. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. 12. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)