Nitesh Kumar Jaiswal vs. The Superintendent Of Central Tax, Hq, Haldia CGST And Cx Commissionerate And Ors

Held

The Court dismissed the writ petition. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's persistent failure to appear before the GST authorities, despite multiple opportunities and specific directions from the Court. The Court found that the petitioner's actions constituted a continuous refusal to abide by the orders of the Court, making the writ petition frivolous and filed solely to obstruct the respondents from proceeding in accordance with law. The ratio decidendi is that a party seeking equitable relief from a High Court must demonstrate compliance with court orders and a willingness to cooperate with lawful proceedings; failure to do so warrants dismissal. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition with costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the Legal Aid Services, Kolkata. The respondents were granted liberty to act in accordance with law against the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner, Nitesh Kumar Jaiswal, filed a writ petition challenging a summons dated April 8, 2026, issued by the Superintendent of Central Tax, Anti Evasion Unit, Haldia CGST & CX Commissionerate. The petitioner had sought adjournments from the authorities. A co-ordinate bench had previously directed the petitioner to intimate his appearance date within 15 days of May 7, 2026. Subsequently, on August 31, 2026, this Court directed the petitioner to appear before the authorities on September 10, 2026, leaving the question of maintainability open. However, on September 10, 2026, the petitioner failed to appear, submitting a letter citing illness instead. The respondents' counsel submitted that the petitioner had repeatedly failed to appear despite court directions and opportunities.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the petitioner's repeated failure to appear before the GST authorities and comply with court orders. This issue turns on the principles of judicial discipline and the conduct of a party seeking equitable relief from the High Court. The petitioner's argument, implicitly, was that the summons was an oppressive action and that he had valid reasons for not appearing, seeking to continue the challenge to the summons. The revenue's argument was that the petitioner had consistently failed to appear before the authorities and had defied court orders, rendering the writ petition frivolous and an obstruction to lawful proceedings. They relied on the repeated directions from the court and the petitioner's non-compliance.