Century Products vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner should not be permitted to challenge the order disposing of their refund application by way of an application within the existing writ petition, especially since the original purpose of the writ was expeditious disposal, which had been achieved. While acknowledging that the High Court can, in fit cases, set aside orders passed during the pendency of a writ petition despite an alternative remedy, the Court found this not to be such a case. The Court found no jurisdictional error in the order passed by the adjudicating authority. The very act of the petitioner applying for refund processing indicated that the authority had jurisdiction to both allow and reject the request. Therefore, the Court disposed of the writ petition with these observations and disposed of the application (CAN 1 of 2025) without passing any order, stating that the impugned order was appealable in nature and no jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 226 was found. The petitioner was advised to challenge the order dated October 31, 2025, before the appellate authority.

Facts

The petitioner, Century Products, filed a writ petition (WPA 20849 of 2025) seeking a writ of mandamus to process their refund application dated 05.06.2025 for ₹1,55,096/- (₹77,548/- each under CGST and SGST) for February 2025, along with applicable interest. During the pendency of the writ petition, the GST authorities issued a show-cause notice on September 9, 2025. The petitioner replied on September 16, 2025. Subsequently, an order was passed by the adjudicating authority on October 31, 2025, under Section 54 of the CGST/WBGST Act, rejecting the refund request. The petitioner then filed an application (CAN 1 of 2025) to challenge this order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the show-cause notice and the order dated October 31, 2025, passed by the adjudicating authority under Section 54 of the CGST/WBGST Act, suffer from jurisdictional errors, warranting interference by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the show-cause notice and the subsequent order rejecting their refund application were passed with jurisdictional errors. They sought to challenge these orders through an application within the pending writ petition. Revenue/State's arguments: The State respondents argued that the petitioner should not be allowed to challenge the adjudication orders via an application, as the original writ petition was filed for expeditious disposal of the refund application, which had been done. They asserted that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST/WBGST Act.