Mrinmoy Saha vs. Supdt. Of CGST & Cx ,Range - V,Krishnanagar & Ors

Held

The Court did not entertain the writ petition on its merits due to the petitioner's conduct and the absence of the crucial prior court order. The Court found it difficult to assess the alleged contravention of the September 4, 2019 order as it was not provided. The Court expressed disapproval of the petitioner's approach of filing a writ petition instead of making representations against the notices. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a representation against the impugned notices dated April 11, 2019, and September 12, 2019, before the respondent authority within two weeks. If such a representation is filed, the respondent authority is directed to consider and dispose of it in accordance with the law, passing a reasoned and speaking order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or their authorized representative, within six weeks from the date of filing the representation. The Court did not decide on the validity of the notices themselves.

Facts

The petitioner, Mrinmoy Saha, challenged a notice dated April 11, 2019, issued by the Superintendent of CGST & CX, Krishnanagar, seeking documents to finalize service tax liability. The petitioner had not responded to several phone calls, emails, and subsequent reminder letters dated May 1, 2019, and September 12, 2019. The petitioner's primary grievance was that these notices contravened a prior court order dated September 4, 2019, in W.P. No. 12300 (W) of 2019. However, this prior order was not annexed to the writ petition or the supplementary affidavit, preventing the court from examining it. The court noted the petitioner's failure to file objections to the notices directly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notices dated April 11, 2019, and September 12, 2019, issued by the Superintendent of CGST & CX are in contravention of this Court's order dated September 4, 2019, in W.P. No. 12300 (W) of 2019? (Question of law) Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notices were issued in contravention of a previous order of this Court dated September 4, 2019. The petitioner relied on this prior order as the basis for their challenge. Revenue's Contention: The respondents (Superintendent of CGST & CX and others) did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, their actions in issuing notices and reminders suggest a position that the petitioner was required to comply with the notices and provide the requested documents.