Prasenjit Banerjee vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax Haldia Com. Jangalpur CGST And Cx Divi.And Ors

Facts

The appellant, Prasenjit Banerjee, is aggrieved by a provisional attachment order dated January 17, 2020, passed by the CGST authorities. He challenged this order through a writ petition before the High Court. The writ petition was filed approximately three years after the provisional attachment order. During this period, an adjudication order was passed on February 15, 2023, and an appeal against this adjudication order was filed before the appellate authority on August 10, 2023. Crucially, this subsequent development was not disclosed in the writ petition. The learned Single Bench dismissed the writ petition, finding no justification to entertain it given the delay and the pendency of a statutory appeal.

Held

The High Court held that the learned Single Bench was fully justified in not entertaining the writ petition and dismissing it. The Court noted the significant delay of approximately three years in filing the writ petition challenging the provisional attachment order. Furthermore, it was observed that an adjudication order had been passed in the interregnum, and an appeal against this adjudication order had been filed before the appellate authority. This fact, which was material to the writ proceedings, was not disclosed by the appellant in the writ petition. Given these circumstances, the Court found no ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Bench. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. However, the Court clarified that this dismissal would not preclude the petitioner from seeking appropriate interim relief before the appellate authority in the pending appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, was justified in dismissing the writ petition filed after a significant delay and without disclosing material subsequent events, such as the filing of a statutory appeal against an adjudication order, thereby circumventing the available statutory remedies? The appellant, as the unsuccessful writ petitioner, presumably argued that the provisional attachment order was illegal or unjustified and that the writ court should have entertained the petition despite the delay and non-disclosure, possibly due to the nature of the grievance. The revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax and the Union of India, likely contended that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the inordinate delay, the availability of an alternative statutory remedy (the pending appeal before the appellate authority), and the suppression of material facts regarding the adjudication order and the subsequent appeal. They would have argued that the learned Single Bench correctly exercised its discretion by dismissing the writ petition.