Sarder Woodcraft Private Limited vs. Superintendent, Range-Iv, Shyambazar Div. CGST And Central Excise, Kol North Comm. And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sarder Woodcraft Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated December 23, 2024, issued by the Superintendent, Range-IV Shymbazar Division, CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata North Commissionerate. The show cause notice indicated grounds for cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration. The petitioner also sought to present a defence to the notice. The show cause notice had been pending since December 31, 2024, and the petitioner's registration was suspended during this period. The High Court considered the matter on June 25, 2025.
Held
The Court held that the show cause notice dated December 23, 2024, was not vague and clearly indicated the grounds on which the petitioner's registration was liable for cancellation. Therefore, the Court found no scope to pass any order at that stage, as considering the merits of the show cause would amount to pre-judging the matter. However, acknowledging that the show cause had been pending since December 31, 2024, and the petitioner's registration was suspended, the Court directed the concerned respondent/officer to hear out and dispose of the show cause notice in accordance with law. This disposal was to include giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and passing a reasoned order, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks from the date of communication of the order. The writ petition and connected application were disposed of with these observations and directions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the show cause notice dated December 23, 2024, issued by the Superintendent, Range-IV Shymbazar Division, CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata North Commissionerate, is vague and lacks specific grounds for cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration, thereby warranting intervention by the High Court at this stage. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought to challenge the show cause notice and present a defence, implying a challenge to its validity or the grounds stated therein. Revenue's contention: The revenue, through the Superintendent, argued that the show cause notice duly identified the alleged violation and the grounds for cancellation, and was not vague. The revenue contended that the Court should not pre-judge the cause at this stage.
Sections Cited
Not specified
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
10 25.06.2025 sb Ct 5
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURI ICTION APPELLATE SIDE
WPA 2639 of 2025 With CAN 1 of 2025
Sarder Woodcraft Private Limited Versus Superintendent, Range-IV Shymbazar Division, CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata North Commissionerate & Ors.
Mr. Parag Kothari
Ms. Paramita Ghoshal
… For the petitioner.
Mr. Shiv Sankar Banerjee
Mr. Abhradip Maity
Mr. Abhishek Chakraborty
Ms. Shatabdi Sen
… For the respondents.
The petitioner seeks to challenge the show cause notice dated 23rd December, 2024 and also seek to set up a defence to the said show cause.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, I find that in the show cause, the alleged violation has duly been identified. The show- cause specifically indicated the grounds on which the petitioner’s registration is liable to be cancelled. The show-cause does not appear to be vague.
Having regard thereto, I am of the view that there is no scope for this Court at this stage to pass any order. If this Court is to consider the petitioner’s case on merits of the show cause, the same, in my view, would be pre- judging the cause.
2
However, taking into consideration the fact that the show cause is pending since 31st December, 2024, and the registration of the petitioner stands suspended, I am of the view that the concerned respondent/officer should hear out and dispose of the show cause, in accordance with law, upon giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and by passing a reasoned order, as expeditiously as possible, preferably but not later than four weeks from the date of communication of this order.
With the above observations and directions the writ petition along with the connected application, being CAN 1 of 2025 stands disposed of.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.