Somenath Ghosh vs. The State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable. The reasoning was that the petitioner had challenged only the show cause notice dated April 9, 2024, issued under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. However, an assessment order under the same section for the same tax period (April 2019 to March 2020) was passed on May 31, 2024, prior to the filing of the writ petition. This crucial fact was not disclosed by the petitioner. Since the show cause notice had been decided and an order passed, and the writ petition did not challenge this final order, there was no scope to entertain the challenge to the superseded show cause notice. The Court found that the petitioner could not maintain a challenge to a show cause notice that had been finally decided without challenging the outcome of that decision. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Somenath Ghosh, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated April 9, 2024, issued under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, concerning the tax period April 2019 to March 2020. The State, represented by Mr. A. Ray, Ld. GP, and Mr. T. M. Siddiqui, submitted that an order under Section 73 of the said Act was passed on May 31, 2024, for the same tax period, prior to the filing of the writ petition. The petitioner failed to disclose this material fact. The writ petition, as filed, only challenged the show cause notice, and not the subsequent assessment order.

Key Issues

1. Whether a writ petition challenging a show cause notice under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, is maintainable when an assessment order for the same tax period has already been passed, and this fact was not disclosed by the petitioner? The State argued that the writ petition is not maintainable because the petitioner challenged only the show cause notice, which has since been decided by an assessment order. The State contended that the petitioner failed to disclose the existence of this assessment order, rendering the challenge to the show cause notice infructuous. The State relied on the principle that a challenge to a superseded notice is not entertainable. The petitioner was not represented and therefore did not present any arguments.