Devam Enteprises vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Held

The Court held that in view of the fact that an order-in-original dated 31.07.2025 had already been passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, pursuant to the show cause notice dated 12.12.2024, there were no grounds for interference by the High Court in the writ petition. The Court reasoned that the issuance of the order-in-original rendered the challenge to the pre-adjudication notices moot. The ratio decidendi is that once an adjudication order has been passed, a writ petition challenging the preliminary notices leading to that order is generally not maintainable, and the petitioner should avail of statutory remedies against the adjudication order. The Court dismissed the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to pursue available remedies in accordance with the law.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Devam Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated 12.12.2024 and an audit memo dated 19.07.2024. The respondents, Union of India and others, informed the Court that an order-in-original dated 31.07.2025 had already been passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, pursuant to the show cause notice. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute were not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history leading to the show cause notice and audit memo is not detailed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should interfere with the ongoing proceedings when an order-in-original has already been passed pursuant to the show cause notice and audit memo under challenge, as per Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought to set aside the show cause notice and audit memo. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the petitioner regarding the validity of the show cause notice or audit memo, or why the Court should interfere despite the order-in-original being passed. Respondents' Contention: The respondents brought to the Court's notice that an order-in-original had already been passed under Section 73 of the CGST/PGST Act, 2017, in response to the show cause notice. They did not explicitly argue on the merits of the show cause notice or audit memo but highlighted the subsequent development.