M/S. M R S Enterprise & Anr vs. Supt Of Anti Evasion, Gr C, CGST & Cx, Kol & Ors
Held
The Court held that the impugned summon dated August 8, 2017, had lost its force as the date of appearance (August 28, 2017) had passed. Furthermore, the petitioner had already appeared and submitted documents in response to the summon. Consequently, the cause of action for the writ petition no longer survived. The Court disposed of the writ petition on these grounds. The disposal of the writ petition was explicitly stated not to prevent the respondents from proceeding in accordance with law in the future if a new occasion arose. Any interim order, if in place, was vacated.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. MRS Enterprise & Anr., challenged a summon dated August 8, 2017, issued by the Superintendent of Anti-Evasion, CGST & CX, Kolkata South Commissionerate. The summon directed the petitioner to appear on August 28, 2017. The petitioner argued that the summon had lost its force as the appearance date had passed and they had already appeared and submitted documents in response to it. The writ petition was filed before the Calcutta High Court.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition challenging a summon, where the date of appearance has passed and the petitioner has already complied by appearing and submitting documents, is maintainable and whether the cause of action survives. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the summon had lost its force due to the passage of time and their subsequent compliance. Therefore, the writ petition challenging it was rendered infructuous. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondent authorities or the State regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or the survival of the cause of action.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2022. p.b. Sl. No.
W.P.A. 29536 of 2017 (Through Video Conference) M/s. MRS Enterprise & Anr. Vs. Superintendent of Anti-Evasion, Gr. C, CGST & CX, Kolkata South Commissionerate & Ors. Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Mr. Malay Dhar, Mr. Bhaskar Sengupta. ………for the petitioners. Mr. Somnath Ganguly, Ms. Priyamvada Singh. ……..for the respondent no.
Mr. A. Ray, Mr. T. M. Siddiqui, Mr. D. Ghosh. ……..for the State. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. In this matter, petitioner has challenged the impugned summon dated 8th August, 2017 issued by the respondent authorities concerned by which petitioner was directed to appear on 28th August, 2017, in my view, the impugned summon has lost its force today and against the issuance of impugned summon, cause of action does not survive at present. Petitioner also submits that in response to the impugned summon, petitioner has already appeared and submitted documents. Considering these facts, this writ petition being WPA No.29536 of 2017 is disposed of.
2 Disposal of this writ petition will not prevent the respondents concerned to proceed in accordance with law in future if occasion so arises. Interim order, if
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.