Amit Agarwal Proprietor Of M/S. Labh Enterprise vs. Assistant Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Central Div. Kol. North Commissionerate And Anr.

Facts

The petitioner, Amit Agarwal, filed a writ petition (WPA 26265 of 2024) challenging a show cause notice dated August 5, 2024, issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017. This notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX, Central Division, Kolkata. Concurrently, another writ petition (WPA 7788 of 2025) filed by the same petitioner challenging an original order dated January 28, 2025, also passed under Section 74 of the said Act, had been dismissed by the High Court on July 17, 2025. By consent of the parties, the instant writ petition was taken up for consideration and was also dismissed based on the observations made in the prior order.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition (WPA 26265 of 2024) challenging the show cause notice dated August 5, 2024, issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, stands dismissed. This decision is based on the prior dismissal of another writ petition (WPA 7788 of 2025) filed by the same petitioner, which challenged the original order dated January 28, 2025, also passed under Section 74 of the said Act. The Court found it appropriate to dismiss the instant petition based on the observations made in the order dated July 17, 2025, which disposed of the challenge to the original order. The ratio decidendi is that once a challenge to the final order under Section 74 has been dismissed, a challenge to the preceding show cause notice under the same provision, by the same party, is also unsustainable. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition challenging the show cause notice dated August 5, 2024, issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, is maintainable in light of the dismissal of a previous writ petition challenging the consequential original order dated January 28, 2025, passed under the same provision. The petitioner's contention, implicitly, is that the show cause notice is flawed and warrants judicial intervention at this stage. The revenue's position, as indicated by the court's decision, is that the challenge to the show cause notice is premature and that the petitioner should pursue the remedies available after the final adjudication, especially given the dismissal of the challenge to the original order.