Awadesh Singh vs. Assistant / Deputy Commissioner, Central Tax And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Awadesh Singh, filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court challenging a show cause-cum-demand notice dated December 28, 2020, issued under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. The respondents, represented by the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner, Central Tax, informed the Court that an adjudication order had already been passed on January 31, 2022, disposing of the show cause notice. The petitioner was represented before the authorities during this adjudication. The respondents argued that the adjudication order was not challenged in the writ petition and that the petition was entertained after the adjudication order was passed. The petitioner stated they were unaware of the adjudication order until it was disclosed in the respondents' affidavit-in-opposition.
Held
The Court held that since an adjudication order had already been passed and the writ petition was confined to challenging the show cause notice, no relief could be granted to the petitioner unless the adjudication order was challenged. The Court noted that the petitioner was unaware of the adjudication order until it was disclosed in the respondents' affidavit. The Court also pointed out the existence of an alternative remedy in the form of an appeal before the appellate authority. Consequently, the Court directed that if the petitioner challenges the adjudication order within four weeks from the date of the order before the appellate authority, the appeal shall be heard and disposed of on merits within eight weeks, with an opportunity of being heard granted to the petitioner. The Court did not decide the merits of the controversy.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition, which challenges only a show cause-cum-demand notice, can be entertained when an adjudication order has already been passed on the said notice? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they were unaware of the adjudication order until it was disclosed in the respondents' affidavit-in-opposition and therefore had not challenged it. They implicitly sought relief against the show cause notice. Revenue's contention: The respondents argued that the adjudication order, passed on January 31, 2022, was the subject matter that should have been challenged, not merely the show cause notice. They contended that the writ petition was entertained after the adjudication order was passed and that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal.
Sections Cited
Section 73(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
M/L 310 01.08.2024 sb Ct 5
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURI ICTION APPELLATE SIDE
WPA 18595 of 2022
Awadesh Singh Versus Assistant/Deputy Commissioner, Central Tax, Shibpur Division, Howrah CGST & CS Commissionerate & Ors.
Mr. Kalyan Das
… For the petitioner.
Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee
Mr. Abhradip Maity
Ms. Shatabdi Sen
… For the respondents.
Affidavit-in-opposition and affidavit-in-reply filed in Court today are taken on record.
The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the show cause-cum-demand notice dated 28th December, 2020, issued under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents by placing before this Court the adjudication order dated 31st January, 2022, would submit that the show cause has been disposed of by passing the adjudication order. The petitioner was also duly represented before the authorities. He submits that the aforesaid adjudication order does not form subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. He further submits that when the writ
2 petition was entertained, the adjudication order had already been passed.
At this stage, this Court had enquired from the petitioner whether the petitioner has challenged the adjudication order dated 31st January, 2022. In response, it is submitted that the petitioner has not challenged the said order since the petitioner was unaware with regard to the same, until disclosure thereof, in the affidavit-in-opposition.
Be that as it may, without going into merits of the controversy and since the adjudication order has already been passed and the present writ petition is only confined to the challenge of the show cause, I am of the view that no relief can be afforded to the petitioner unless the petitioner challenges the adjudication order. There is also an alternative remedy in the form of appeal before the appellate authority.
In view thereof, in the event, the petitioner challenges the adjudication order within a period of four weeks from date before the appellate authority, the same shall be heard and disposed of by the appellate authority on merits, within a period of eight weeks from date, upon giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.
3
With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of 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.