M/S Sri Lakshminarasimha Electricals vs. The State Of Karnataka

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sri Lakshminarasimha Electricals, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated 20.10.2022 and a summary of show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 20.10.2022, both issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit), Tumkur (R2). The petitioner also challenged an endorsement dated 22.11.2022 issued by R2. The petitioner sought a direction to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (R3) to issue a circular under Section 168 of the KGST Act, 2017, in line with a circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (R4). During the pendency of the petition, a final order was passed. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the petition was filed challenging the show cause notice, but since a final order has now been passed, the petition could be disposed of with liberty to file fresh proceedings.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the petition was filed challenging a show cause notice, but a final order had been passed in the interim. Therefore, the petitioner requested that the petition be disposed of with liberty to file fresh proceedings to challenge the final order. The Court accepted this submission and disposed of the petition accordingly, subject to all just exceptions. No findings were made on the merits of the show cause notice or the subsequent final order, nor was any specific provision of law discussed in detail beyond the mention of Section 168 of the KGST Act in the context of the petitioner's prayer for a circular.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition, which challenges a show cause notice, is maintainable after a final order has been passed by the respondent authority? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the writ petition was initially filed to challenge the show cause notice and related documents. However, given that a final order has since been passed, the petitioner sought to withdraw the current petition with liberty to file fresh proceedings to challenge the final order. Revenue's Argument: The respondents, represented by the Additional Government Advocate, were called upon to accept notice. No specific argument was recorded for the respondents regarding the maintainability of the petition or the merits of the case, as the matter was disposed of based on the petitioner's submission and a memo placed on record.