Pankaj Kumar Saha vs. Union Of INDIA Through The Secretary Ministry Of Finance Deptt Of Revenue

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was premature. The petitioner had approached the Court merely upon the issuance of the Summary of Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 22.12.2021, and there was no order of adjudication on record. Consequently, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition to enable the petitioner to participate in the adjudication proceedings. The Court, in light of this request, dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. The Court also noted that the petitioner would have recourse to legal remedies if aggrieved by the outcome of the adjudication proceedings.

Facts

The petitioner, Pankaj Kumar Saha, filed a writ petition challenging a Summary of Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 22.12.2021, and a related show cause notice under Section 73 of the JGST Act, also dated 22.12.2021. These notices pertain to the financial year 2019-20 and were issued by Respondent No. 4, the State Tax Officer, Hazaribagh. The notices were based on an inspection conducted at the petitioner's premises on 25.03.2021, which revealed certain irregularities. The petitioner sought to quash these notices and restrain the respondents from taking further action. The Court noted that there was no order of adjudication on record and that the writ petition was filed prematurely, solely upon the issuance of the Summary of Show Cause Notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in its current form, given that it has been filed solely upon the issuance of a Summary of Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 and a show cause notice under Section 73 of the JGST Act, without an adjudication order being passed. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner sought to quash the impugned notices and prevent further action by the respondents, indicating a challenge to the procedural validity or basis of these notices. The petitioner's counsel sought permission to withdraw the petition to participate in the adjudication proceedings. Revenue/State's Argument: The respondents, through their counsel, contended that the writ petition was premature as no final adjudication order had been passed. They argued that the petitioner should participate in the ongoing adjudication process initiated by the show cause notices.