Case Details: Synthroma Laboratories Versus State of West Bengal (2025) 32 Centax 221 (Cal.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.
- Ms Sweta Mukherjee for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri Anirban Ray, GP, Md. T. M. Siddiqui, AGP, Tanoy Chakraborty, Ms Sumita Shaw & Saptak Sanyal for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, against whom a pre-show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01A was issued threatening initiation of proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act, submitted before the High Court that no steps had been taken in furtherance thereof, thereby undermining the petitioner’s valuable right to seek benefit under Section 128A of the CGST Act. It was contended that the prolonged inaction on the part of the proper officer appeared intended to frustrate the petitioner’s ability to avail the waiver scheme introduced under the said provision. The petitioner sought a direction to the proper officer to act upon the pre-show cause notice by either dropping the proceedings or issuing a formal notice under the statutory framework. The matter was accordingly placed before the Calcutta High Court.
High Court Held
The Calcutta High Court held that the pre-show cause notice had been pending for nearly a year, and it would be appropriate to direct the proper officer to take a decision based on the response filed by the petitioner. It was observed that if the officer formed the view that the notice need not be proceeded with, the proceedings should be dropped. Conversely, if the officer was of the opinion that proceedings were to be initiated under Section 73(1) or 74(1) of the CGST Act, such notice should be issued forthwith. Further, if proceedings were initiated under Section 73(1), the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the waiver scheme under Section 128A, provided all formalities were complied with and an application was submitted within 48 hours from the date of such notice.
