Amar Kumar Saha Proprietor Of Amar Construction vs. The Joint Commissioner, Howrah CGST And Cx Commissionerate And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Amar Kumar Saha, Proprietor of Amar Construction, filed a writ petition challenging a show-cause-cum-demand notice dated April 20, 2022, issued by the Joint Commissioner, Howrah CGST & CX Commissionerate. The notice, issued by the CGST Authority, raised several issues requiring the petitioner's reply within 30 days. The petitioner sought to challenge this notice through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondents included the Joint Commissioner, CGST Authority, Union of India, and the State.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the impugned show-cause-cum-demand notice unless it is demonstrably without jurisdiction, which was not the case here. The Court found that the issuing authority possessed the necessary jurisdiction. Furthermore, the petitioner had been provided with an opportunity to respond to the notice and could also avail the benefit of a personal hearing to present their case. The Court declined to grant any relief except to permit the petitioner to file a reply to the show-cause notice within two weeks from the date of the order. If such a reply is filed, the concerned respondents are directed to consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law, passing a reasoned and speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or their authorized representative within four weeks thereafter.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned show-cause-cum-demand notice dated April 20, 2022, issued by the Joint Commissioner, Howrah CGST & CX Commissionerate, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction or being otherwise invalid on its face. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the show-cause notice should be entertained by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. While not explicitly stated, the filing of a writ petition implies a challenge to the validity or jurisdiction of the notice. Revenue/State's Contention: The CGST Authority and the State argued that a writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable against a show-cause notice unless it is patently without jurisdiction. They contended that the petitioner has an adequate alternative remedy by responding to the notice and availing the opportunity for a personal hearing.