Punit Dhanuka vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Punit Dhanuka, filed a writ petition challenging the non-consideration of his representation dated December 5, 2023. In this representation, he requested the Commissioner, Kolkata North Commissionerate, CGST and Central Excise, to appoint a common adjudicating authority for a show-cause and demand notice dated December 1, 2022. During the pendency of the writ petition, two adjudicators issued separate orders on January 28, 2024, and February 5, 2025. The petitioner then filed a connected application (CAN 1 of 2025) to challenge these subsequent orders. The Court noted that while two adjudicators had passed orders, others were yet to complete their proceedings.
Held
The Court held that the scope of the writ petition could not be enlarged by filing a connected application to challenge the adjudication orders passed during its pendency. Consequently, the connected application (CAN 1 of 2025) was dismissed. However, the dismissal of the connected application was not to prevent the petitioner from challenging the adjudication orders in accordance with the law, and the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of exclusion of the period spent before the Court. The Court also noted that the petitioner's representation dated December 5, 2023, requesting a common adjudicator, was pending before the Commissioner, Kolkata North Commissionerate. Citing Circular No. 169/01/2022-GST dated March 12, 2022, the Court directed the respondent no. 2 (Commissioner) to forthwith decide the petitioner's representation, as the circular was binding. Pending this decision, other adjudicators were restrained from passing further orders concerning the show-cause notice dated December 1, 2022. The decision on the representation was expected within four weeks.
Key Issues
1. Whether the scope of the writ petition could be enlarged by filing a connected application to challenge subsequent adjudication orders passed during its pendency? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner sought to challenge the adjudication orders passed during the pendency of the writ petition by filing CAN 1 of 2025. Revenue's arguments: The revenue authorities, represented by the DGGST authority, CGST authority, and Union of India, did not explicitly record arguments regarding the enlargement of the writ petition's scope. However, the Court's observation implies that the revenue's stance, or at least the Court's interpretation, was that the writ petition's scope should not be enlarged. The Court also considered the petitioner's pending representation for a common adjudicator, citing Circular No. 169/01/2022-GST dated March 12, 2022.
Sections Cited
Section 169/01/2022-GST
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
M/L - 26 05/03/2025 Court. No. 5
S.Kundu
WPA 735 of 2025 With CAN 1 of 2025
Punit Dhanuka Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Nilotpal Chowdhury, Mr. Debaditya Banerjee, Mr. S. W. Faruque, …for the petitioner. Mr. Tapan Bhanja,
…for the DGGST authority. Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anurag Roy
…for the CGST authority. Mr. Om Narayan Rai, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Mr. Ankan Das, Ms. S. Ghosh …for the Union of India.
The present writ petition has been filed complaining of non-consideration of the petitioner’s representation dated 5th December, 2023 whereby, the petitioner requested the Commissioner, Kolkata North Commissionerate, CGST and Central Excise to appoint a common adjudicating authority in respect of show- cause and demand notice dated 1st December, 2022. 2. During the pendency of the writ petition, two of the Adjudicators have already decided the show-cause and passed have two several orders dated 28th January, 2024 and 5th February, 2025 respectively, which are appearing at page 10 and 48 of the connected
By the aforesaid connected application, the petitioner seeks to challenge the aforesaid orders.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, in my view, since the adjudication orders have already been passed, scope of the writ petition cannot be enlarged by filing a connected
The connected application being CAN 1 of 2025
accordingly stands dismissed.
Dismissal of the connected application shall, however, not stand in the way of the writ petitioner challenging the aforesaid orders in accordance with law. The petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of the exclusion of the period spent before this Court.
At the same time, noting that by the show-cause dated 1st December, 2022, the petitioner who is the noticee no. 37 has been directed to appear and respond before the several Adjudicators and although, two of the Adjudicators have already passed their orders, the other Adjudicators are yet to complete the adjudication proceeding. Noting that a representation dated 5th December, 2023 is already pending bef0re the Commissioner, Kolkata North Commissionerate dated 15th December, 2022 to appoint a common Adjudicator which has the sanction of the Circular No.
3 169/01/2022-GST dated 12th March, 2022, I am of the view that the respondent no. 2 should forthwith take a decision on the petitioner’s representation having regard to the Circular dated 12th March, 2022, which in my view is binding on the Commissioner. Pending such decision on the petitioner’s representation, the other Adjudicators are restrained from passing any further order in connection with the show-cause dated 1st December.
As the petitioner’s representation is pending since 5th December, 2023, it is expected that the respondent no. 2 shall take a decision in the matter within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order.
The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
All parties shall act on the basis of server copy of this order duly downloaded from this Court’s official website.
(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.