Universal Bituminous Industries PVT. LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was premature. The reasoning was that the petitioner had filed a reply to the impugned show cause notice, and the respondent authorities had not yet had the opportunity to consider this reply and pass a final order. The Court directed the Assistant Commissioner of CGST (respondent no. 3) to consider the petitioner's reply and pass a final, reasoned, and speaking order in accordance with the law. This order was to be passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or its authorized representative within eight weeks of the communication of the Court's order. The petitioner was also granted the liberty to urge all points raised in the writ petition before the respondent authority during the hearing. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition challenging a show cause notice is generally premature if the assessee has submitted a reply and the adjudicating authority has not yet passed a final order, provided the statutory process allows for a proper adjudication.

Facts

The petitioner, Universal Bituminous Industries Pvt. Ltd., challenged a show cause notice dated July 17, 2019, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of CGST. The petitioner subsequently filed a reply to this notice on December 20, 2021. The writ petition was filed before the Calcutta High Court challenging the show cause notice. The respondents are the Union of India and other CGST authorities. The amount in dispute is not specified in the judgment. The procedural history involves the issuance of the show cause notice, the petitioner's reply, and the filing of the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is premature given that the petitioner has filed a reply to the show cause notice and the respondent authorities have not yet passed a final order. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner, by filing the writ petition, likely sought to have the show cause notice quashed or to obtain directions for a fair adjudication. The specific arguments are not detailed, but the act of filing the writ implies a grievance against the ongoing process. Revenue's Argument: The respondents, represented by Mr. Sujit Mitra and Mr. Somnath Ganguli, likely argued that the writ petition was premature as the statutory process of adjudication, including considering the petitioner's reply and issuing a reasoned order, had not been completed. They would have contended that the petitioner should exhaust the available remedies before approaching the High Court.