Ram Kishanagarwal vs. Superintendent Of Central Tax Group-F, Circle-I, Kolkata Audit-Ii Commissionerate And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Ram Kishan Agarwal, filed a writ petition challenging two show-cause notices dated June 14, 2024, and July 19, 2024, issued under Section 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. These notices pertained to tax periods from 2017-2018 to 2021-22. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Superintendent of Central Tax Group-5 and others, the respondents, passed two adjudication orders under Section 74(9) of the said Act in response to the show-cause notices. The petitioner sought leave to file a supplementary affidavit to challenge these adjudication orders, but the Court was of the view that the scope of the writ petition could not be enlarged. The petitioner then prayed for leave to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file afresh, including a challenge to the adjudication orders.
Held
The Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. The Court noted that the petitioner sought to withdraw the present writ petition and, without delving into the issue of the writ petition's maintainability, granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh petition on the self-same cause of action. This liberty included the ability to challenge both the original show-cause notices and the adjudication orders dated January 21, 2025, and February 4, 2025. The Court's decision was based on the petitioner's request for withdrawal and the desire to avoid enlarging the scope of the existing writ petition. The ratio decidendi is that a party may be permitted to withdraw a writ petition with liberty to file afresh when new developments occur during the pendency of the petition, provided the court deems it appropriate and does not wish to adjudicate on the existing issues.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in its current form, considering the issuance of adjudication orders after the filing of the writ petition? 2. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to withdraw the writ petition with the right to file a fresh petition challenging both the original show-cause notices and the subsequent adjudication orders? The petitioner argued that the adjudication orders were passed during the pendency of the writ petition and sought to challenge them. The petitioner ultimately prayed for withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to file afresh to incorporate the challenge to these new orders. The respondents, the Superintendent of Central Tax Group-5 and others, and the State, were heard. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondents regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or the petitioner's request for withdrawal, other than their presence and participation in the hearing.
Sections Cited
Section 74, Section 74(9)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
D/L - 25 20.02.2025 Court. No. 5
S.Kundu
WPA 276 of 2025
Ram Kishan Agarwal Vs. Superintendent of Central Tax Group-5 & Ors.
Mr. Rites Goel, Mr. Shantanu Chakraborty …for the petitioner. Mr. Manasi Mukherjee, Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee …for the respondents. Mr. A. Ray, Mr. Md. T.M. Siddiqui, Mr. T. Chakraborty, Mr. S. Sanyal …for the State.
Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record.
Challenging the show-cause notice dated 14th June, 2024 and 19th July, 2024 both passed under Section 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the instant writ petition has been filed.
Mr. Goel, learned advocate for the petitioner raises the juri ictional issue, in issuing the show-cause notices. He, however, submits that during the pendency of the writ petition two several adjudication orders under Section 74 (9) of the said Act in respect of the aforesaid two notices for the tax periods 2017-2018 to 2021-22 have been passed. Copies of the aforesaid orders in original as placed before this Court are taken on record.
2
Although, he seeks leave to file a supplementary affidavit challenging the aforesaid orders, this Court is of the view that the scope of the writ petition cannot be enlarged by filing supplementary affidavit.
Mr. Goel at this stage prays for leave to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file afresh on the self-same cause of action in respect of the show-cause notices as also to incorporate the challenge to the orders in original dated 21st January, 2025 and 4th February, 2025. 6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and noting that the petitioner seeks to withdraw the present writ petition, without going into the issue of maintainability of the writ petition, this Court permits the petitioner to withdraw the petition with liberty to file afresh on the self-same cause of action.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
(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.