M/S Al Fareed Trader Th. Fareed Ahmed vs. Union Of INDIA Th. Ministry Of Finance, New Delhi And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Al Fareed Trader, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated 27.07.2024 issued by the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax. The petitioner contended that the notice violated principles of natural justice and provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 and J&K SGST Act, 2017. Subsequently, the revenue authorities passed a final order on 03.02.2025. The petitioner had also filed another writ petition, WP(C) No. 676/2025, assailing this final order, which was pending before another bench. The present petition was considered infructuous because of the pendency of the other petition concerning the final order. An interim order had previously been passed in the present petition on 21.08.2024, directing no coercive action based on the show cause notice.

Held

The Court held that the present writ petition (WP(C) No. 2005/2024) was rendered infructuous. The reasoning was that the petitioner had already filed a subsequent writ petition, WP(C) No. 676/2025, challenging the final order passed by the revenue authorities. This subsequent petition was pending before a Coordinate Bench and was therefore the appropriate forum to address the substantive issues. The Court noted that the petitioner had been advised to move an appropriate application in WP(C) No. 676/2025 for interim relief or modification of any prior orders. The respondents agreed that any such application would be considered by the Coordinate Bench. The ratio decidendi is that when a subsequent proceeding directly addresses the final outcome of an earlier notice or order, and that subsequent proceeding is pending, the earlier proceeding challenging only the notice may be considered infructuous. The operative direction was to dispose of the present petition as infructuous.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present writ petition (WP(C) No. 2005/2024) is rendered infructuous, given that a subsequent writ petition (WP(C) No. 676/2025) assailing the final order passed pursuant to the show cause notice is already pending before a Coordinate Bench. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the present petition should be disposed of as infructuous because the core issue of the final order is being addressed in WP(C) No. 676/2025. They indicated that they would seek appropriate interim relief or modification in the pending petition. The petitioner also referred to an interim order passed in WP(C) No. 676/2025 in an identical case, Vivan Traders vs. Union of India, where interim relief was granted. Revenue's contention: The respondents' counsel submitted that if an application for interim relief is moved in the pending petition, the Coordinate Bench would consider it in accordance with law.