Proceedings u/s 74 of WB GST Act valid without prior Section 61 scrutiny, writ challenge dismissed

HC upheld the validity of proceedings and demand initiated u/s 74 of the WB GST Act arising from mismatch between GSTR-7 and GSTR-3B. It held that scrutiny of returns u/s 61 is not a precondition or sine qua non for invoking s.74; the only requirement is the proper officer's prima facie satisfaction. The Court disapproved assessees bypassing statutory remedies and invoking writ jurisdiction at show cause stage, especially after ignoring notices. As the notices were duly uploaded on the proper portal link, no breach of natural justice was found. Writ application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues involved:
The grievance against tax liability, show cause notice under section 74 of the Act, final order passed under section 74, and consequential notice of bank attachment.

Issue 1: Pre-show cause notice and violation of rules
The petitioner received a pre-show cause notice in FORM GST DRC-01A for the period 2018-19, alleged to be unsigned and issued without verification of returns under section 61 of the Act. An unsigned show cause notice was also issued under section 73 of the Act, along with a summary notice in FORM GST DRC-01.

Issue 2: Lack of verification and violation of natural justice
The petitioner's primary grievance is the failure of authorities to verify returns under section 61 of the Act before issuing the intimation of tax in FORM GST DRC-01. Allegations of invalidity due to the unsigned nature of the communication, violation of Rule 26(3) of the WBGST Rules, and lack of opportunity for a personal hearing are raised.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Section 74 of the Act
Section 74 of the Act outlines the procedure for serving notice on a person chargeable with tax. The court clarifies that verification under section 61 is not a pre-condition for initiating proceedings under section 74, emphasizing the role of the proper officer in forming a prima facie opinion. The petitioner's claim of notices being uploaded incorrectly on the portal is dismissed, as the notices were accessible and intimation was also sent via email.

Issue 4: Authentication of notices and representation
The contention that notices were neither signed nor authenticated is refuted, as notices uploaded on the GST Portal are authenticated through digital signatures. Section 74(9) provides for the opportunity to submit a representation. The petitioner's failure to engage with the authorities and contest the proceedings is highlighted.

Issue 5: Judicial precedents and lack of grounds for interference
The court distinguishes cited decisions where no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. It concludes that there is no illegality or procedural impropriety warranting interference with the impugned orders.

In conclusion, the writ petition is dismissed, emphasizing the importance of engaging with authorities in a time-bound manner and not delaying investigative processes meant to establish facts.

---