Santosh Kumar Gupta vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Revenue And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Santosh Kumar Gupta, challenged a search and seizure proceeding under GST. This is the second writ petition filed by the petitioner concerning the same proceeding. An earlier writ petition (WPA 3320 of 2022) was disposed of on March 14, 2022. The petitioner appealed this order (MAT 651 of 2022), and the appeal court, by judgment dated July 5, 2022, set aside the previous order. The appeal court remanded the matter to the appropriate authority with directions to issue a fresh show-cause notice containing the full text of the allegations, grant the petitioner reasonable time to reply, and provide an opportunity for a personal hearing before passing a fresh order on merit. Despite these directions, the petitioner filed the current writ petition challenging the show-cause notice issued pursuant to the appeal court's order, even after filing a reply and attending a personal hearing.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable. The Court found that the petitioner's intention was to stall the impugned investigation proceeding and that the petitioner was adamant and not cooperating with the respondent assessing officer, who was proceeding based on the Division Bench order. The Court considered the factual circumstances and the multiplicity of proceedings initiated by the petitioner concerning the same search and seizure proceeding. The Court reasoned that entertaining the writ petition would allow the petitioner to further delay the investigation. Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ petition with costs. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the current writ petition is maintainable when the petitioner is challenging a show-cause notice issued pursuant to a Division Bench order, after having participated in the proceedings by filing a reply and attending a personal hearing? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner contends that the show-cause notice, issued pursuant to the Division Bench order, is illegal and should be challenged. The petitioner argues that the current writ petition is necessary despite the previous proceedings and participation in the hearing. Revenue/State's Contention: The revenue/State did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the Court's reasoning implies that the petitioner's intention is to stall the investigation and that the petitioner is not cooperating with the assessing officer who is acting based on the Division Bench order.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
WPA 20530 OF 2022 22.09.2022
Sl no. 15
Santosh Kumar Gupta Ct no. 2
- Vs - P.M.
Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, Howrah Zone, BI (South Bengal), The West Bengal Goods and Services Tax & Ors.
Ms. Rita Mukherjee,
Mr. Abhijat Das
… for the petitioner
Mr. Anirban Ray, Ld. Govt. Pleader
Mr. T.M. Siddiqui,
Mr. N. Chatterjee,
Mr. V. Kothari
…. For the State
By this writ petition petitioner has challenged the legality of the impugned search and seizure proceeding against which petitioner had already filed earlier another writ petition being WPA 3320 of 2022 which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 14th March, 2022 and which was challenged by the petitioner by way of appeal being MAT 651 of 2022 and the appeal Court by its judgement dated 5th July, 2022 disposed of the said appeal by setting aside the order dated 14th March, 2022 and the matter was remanded back to the appropriate authority with the direction to issue fresh show cause notice containing full text of allegation against the petitioner and by the said order of the appeal Court petitioner was granted reasonable time to submit his reply to the show cause notice and
2 respondent concerned was directed to providing an opportunity of personal or physical or virtual hearing to the petitioner and pass a fresh order on merit in accordance with law.
Petitioner in spite of having such order by the appeal court where respondents authority concerned were given liberty to pass the final order subject to condition laid down in the said order of the appeal Court, now even before passing of such final order by the respondents as per order of the appeal court, petitioner has filed this second writ petition after receiving show-cause notice pursuant to the order of the Division Bench of this Court.
Though petitioner has filed reply to the show- cause notice and even the petitioner has been given opportunity of personal hearing still petitioner is aggrieved by contending that the show-cause notice, which has been issued by the respondents pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Division Bench of this Court, is not legal by challenging the same out of the same search and seizure proceeding.
Considering the factual circumstances of this case I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition for the reason that the whole intention of the petitioner is stall the impugned investigation
3 proceeding and petitioner is adamant and is not cooperating with respondent assessing officer who is proceeding on the basis of Division Bench order of this Court.
In view of the facts recorded herein, this writ petition being WPA 20530 of 2022 is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the Calcutta High Court Bar Association Lawyers’ Benevolent Fund for indulging in multiplicity of proceeding involving the same search and seizure proceeding.
(Md. Nizamuddin, J.)
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.