M/S Speedways Logistics Private Limited And Anr vs. The Additional Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Kkolkata Audit 1 Commissionerate And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, M/s Speedways Logistics Private Limited & Anr., filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice issued on August 2, 2024, under Section 74 of the Central/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. During the pendency of this writ petition, an order in original was passed on January 31, 2025, pertaining to the tax period July 2017 to March 2020. The Court noted that the original order, having been passed after the show cause notice, represented a separate cause of action and could not be challenged via a connected application within the existing writ petition.
Held
The Court held that since an order in original had been passed after the filing of the writ petition challenging the show cause notice, the original writ petition could not be maintained in its current form to challenge the subsequent order. The Court observed that the order in original gives rise to a separate cause of action. Therefore, the Court permitted the petitioners to challenge both the show cause notice and the order in original dated January 31, 2025, in a composite manner before the appropriate forum, if they were so advised. The writ petition and the connected application were disposed of with these directions. No affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the respondents, and thus, the allegations were deemed not admitted.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition challenging the show cause notice can be maintained when an order in original has subsequently been passed adjudicating the matter. Petitioner's contention: The petitioners initiated the writ petition to challenge the show cause notice. The subsequent passing of the order in original, without addressing the initial challenge, creates a situation where both the show cause notice and the adjudication order need to be challenged. Revenue's contention: The respondents did not file an affidavit-in-opposition, and therefore, the allegations in the writ petition were deemed not admitted. The Court's observation implies that the subsequent order in original creates a new cause of action, suggesting the original writ petition might not be the appropriate forum for challenging the final adjudication.
Sections Cited
Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
M/L 1076 04.04.2025 sb Ct 5
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURI ICTION APPELLATE SIDE
WPA 23717 of 2024 With CAN 1 of 2025
M/s Speedways Logistics Private Limited & Anr. Versus The Additional Commissioner, CGST & CX Kolkata & Ors.
Mr. Ankit Kanodia
Ms. Megha Agarwal
Mr. Piyush Khaitan
… For the petitioners
Mr. Kaushik Dey
Mr. Kaustuv K. Maiti
… For the CGST authorities.
Mr. P. K. Bhowmik
Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee
Mr. Ankan Das
Ms. Shradhya Ghosh
… For Union of India.
Challenging show cause issued in Form GST DRC 1 dated 2nd August, 2024 under Section 74 of the Central/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), the instant writ petition has been filed.
It appears that during the pendency of the writ petition an order in original dated 31st January, 2025 has been passed in respect of the tax period July, 2017 to March, 2020. 3. Since, the show cause has already been adjudicated and has culminated in the order in original, I am of the view that the order in original cannot be challenged by
2 way of a connected application as the same gives rise to a separate cause of action.
Having regard thereto, I am of the view that the instant writ petition can be disposed of by permitting the petitioners to challenge not only the show cause but also the adjudication order in original dated 31st January, 2025 in a composite manner in accordance with law, before the appropriate forum ,if so advised.
With the above observations and directions the writ petition along with the connected application stands disposed of.
Since no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for, the allegations made in the writ petition and the connected application are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents. 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.