Prima facie excess input tax credit notice upheld where recorded reasons supported inquiry at the threshold.

A notice under section 46 of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 read with section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was upheld where the authority had prima facie material and recorded reasons suggesting excess input tax credit carried forward by the dealer. The Court found that the existence of material indicating excess credit and the call for an explanation were sufficient at the notice stage, and section 22(6) did not negate that power. The ejusdem generis argument did not displace the statutory basis for issuance. The notice was therefore not vitiated by lack of jurisdiction or perversity, and the writ challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notice issued under section 46 of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 read with section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was without jurisdiction or otherwise vitiated for invoking the power to seek an explanation on alleged excess input tax credit carried forward by the dealer.

Analysis: The notice was issued for the assessment period in question on the basis that the dealer had carried forward excess input tax credit of more than Rs. 5 lakhs to the next financial year. Section 46(1)(b) of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 permits the Commissioner to act where there is prima facie satisfaction of short payment of net tax, excess claim of input tax credit, loss of revenue, or other recorded reasons. The Court held that, on the facts, the authority could not be said to have acted wholly without jurisdiction. The existence of material showing excess credit and the requirement of an explanation were sufficient to justify the issuance of notice. Section 22(6) of the Act did not negate the authority's power at the notice stage. The contention based on ejusdem generis did not displace the statutory basis for the notice.

Conclusion: The notice was held to be valid and not vitiated by perversity or lack of jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed, and the impugned notice was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A notice under section 46 of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 is sustainable where the authority has prima facie material and recorded reasons bringing the case within section 46(1)(b), and the writ court will not interfere at the threshold merely because the assessee disputes the factual basis for the proposed assessment.

---