United Engineering Co vs. Superintendent Range Vi Div Vi CGST Thane Commissionerate

Held

The Court declined to entertain the writ petition. It reasoned that since the impugned show cause notices have been disposed of by the Adjudicating Authority through orders dated November 22, 2025, the Petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy of filing an appeal against these orders. In such an appeal, the Petitioner can raise all contentions, including the mandatory nature of Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules and the consequences of non-compliance. The Court noted that the issue regarding the mandatory nature of Rule 142(1A) is wide open, particularly after its amendment to include the expression 'may' with effect from October 15, 2020. The Court relied on its previous decision in Pidilite Industries Ltd. and other precedents like Oberoi Constructions Ltd. to emphasize the practice of exhausting alternate statutory remedies. The Petitioner was granted liberty to challenge the order dated November 22, 2025, before the Appellate Authority.

Facts

The Petitioner, United Engineering Co., filed a writ petition challenging show cause notices dated June 29, 2025, and June 30, 2025, issued by the Superintendent, Range VI, Division VI, CGST Thane Commissionerate. The challenge was based on the ground that these notices were not preceded by a pre-show cause notice as required by Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules. During the pendency of the petition, the Adjudicating Authority disposed of the impugned show cause notices by issuing orders on November 22, 2025. The Petitioner sought leave to amend the petition to challenge these subsequent orders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging show cause notices on the ground of non-compliance with Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, when the show cause notices have since been disposed of by the Adjudicating Authority. Petitioner's argument: The Petitioner contended that the show cause notices were invalid due to the non-compliance with Rule 142(1A) and sought to challenge the subsequent orders by amending the petition. Revenue's argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the Respondent (Revenue). However, the Court's reasoning implies that the availability of an alternate remedy of appeal against the final orders is a significant factor. The Court also noted that the Petitioner's plea regarding the mandatory nature of Rule 142(1A) is still open for consideration, especially given the amendment to the Rule introducing the word 'may'.