Md Kalim Ansari vs. The Superintendent Range Ii Central Tax, Shibpur Division And Ors

Held

The Court held that while it is generally reluctant to entertain writ petitions against show-cause notices, this petition was being entertained due to a pure legal question regarding the exercise of jurisdiction in issuing the impugned notice. The Court noted that the petitioner had filed an objection to the show-cause notice, which was pending and not denied by the respondents. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the concerned respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's objection dated 2nd December, 2021, in accordance with the law. This disposal is to be done by passing a reasoned and speaking order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or their authorized representative within eight weeks. Until a final order is passed on the objection, no coercive action is to be taken against the petitioner, and further proceedings will depend on the outcome of the objection.

Facts

The petitioner, Md. Kalim Ansari, has filed a writ petition challenging a show-cause-cum-demand notice dated 5th October, 2021, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Shibur Division, Howrah, CGST (respondent No. 2). The petitioner had filed an objection to this notice on 2nd December, 2021, which, according to the petitioner, remained pending. The respondents' counsel did not deny this fact. The High Court, despite its general reluctance to entertain writ petitions against show-cause notices, decided to hear this petition due to a pure legal question concerning the jurisdiction in issuing the notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Assistant Commissioner had the jurisdiction to issue the impugned show-cause-cum-demand notice dated 5th October, 2021, under the relevant provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, given that the petitioner's objection dated 2nd December, 2021, was still pending consideration? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuance of the show-cause notice was legally questionable, implying a jurisdictional issue, especially in light of the pending objection. The petitioner relied on the principle that a pending objection should be addressed before further coercive action is taken. Revenue's Contention: The revenue authorities, represented by Mr. Banerjee, did not deny the fact that the petitioner's objection was pending. Their argument, if any, on the jurisdiction or the validity of the notice was not explicitly recorded in the judgment.