Nitish Kumar vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax CGST Commissionerate And Others

Held

The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's claims due to the absence of the petitioner's counsel and the submissions made by the respondents. Regarding prayer (i), the Court noted that officers 2 and 3 have been transferred. For prayer (ii), the Court was informed that the petitioner's statement has been recorded and videographed, and future recordings are retained. For prayer (iii), the Court held that the order dated 22.11.2021, passed by the Joint Commissioner (First Appellate Authority under RTI Act, 2005), can be challenged by the petitioner under the RTI Act, 2005, by availing the alternative remedy of appeal. For prayer (iv), the Court acknowledged that respondent No. 4 is an adjudicating authority under the CGST Act, 2017. With respect to the final prayer, the Court noted that a show cause notice had already been issued on 02.04.2023, and the petitioner has a remedy to challenge it. Consequently, the Court found no further directions required and dismissed the petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to revive it within two months if anything survives.

Facts

The petitioner, Shri Nitish Kumar, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking several directions against the Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax CGST Commissionerate, and other respondents. The prayers included deploying a responsible officer, conducting statement recording under CCTV surveillance as per Supreme Court orders, quashing an order dated 22.11.2021 passed by respondents No. 2/3 without hearing the petitioner, and quashing an email dated 14.12.2021 issued by respondent No. 4. The respondents, through their counsel, submitted that officers 2 and 3 have been transferred, the petitioner's statement has been recorded and videographed as per court orders, and future recordings are retained. Regarding the order dated 22.11.2021, it was stated to be passed by the Joint Commissioner (First Appellate Authority under RTI Act, 2005) and challengeable under the RTI Act. It was also stated that respondent No. 4 is an adjudicating authority, and a show cause notice has been issued on 02.04.2023, for which the petitioner has a remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to deploy a responsible officer in place of respondents No. 2/3 for fair, transparent, and expedite investigation, considering the transfer of officers No. 2 and 3? (Prayer (i)) 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the recording of statements under CCTV surveillance as per Supreme Court orders in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3543 of 2020, Paramvir Singh Saini Vs. Baljit Singh & others? (Prayer (ii)) 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 22.11.2021 passed by respondents No. 2/3 without hearing the petitioner, violating the principle of natural justice? (Prayer (iii)) 4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of certiorari to quash the email dated 14.12.2021 issued by respondent No. 4 in violation of Section 2(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Circular No. 31/05/2018-GST, considering respondent No. 4 as the adjudicating authority? (Prayer (iv)) Petitioner's arguments (as per prayers): The petitioner sought directions for fair investigation, videographed statements, quashing of an order passed without hearing, and quashing of an email issued by an authority allegedly not empowered. Respondents' arguments: The respondents contended that the issues raised by the petitioner have either been rendered infructuous due to transfers, complied with, or have alternative statutory remedies available, such as challenging the RTI order under the RTI Act or the show cause notice under the CGST Act.