Abhiav Infrabuild PVT. LTD.N vs. Shri Ambrish Nadkar

Held

The High Court held that it was not necessary to entertain the writ petition. The reasoning was that subsequent orders had been passed by the respondents concerning the show cause notices that were under challenge. The court noted that an order dated March 2, 2021, was passed as a consequence of the show cause notice at Annexure P-5, and another order dated March 3, 2022, was passed with respect to the show cause notice at Annexure P-6. Therefore, the court concluded that the writ petition, which sought to quash the show cause notices, was no longer required to be entertained. The petitioner was granted liberty to challenge the subsequent orders in the manner known to law. The ratio decidendi is that once adjudication has taken place and orders have been passed by the statutory authorities, a writ petition challenging the pre-adjudication show cause notices becomes infructuous, and the aggrieved party should challenge the final orders.

Facts

The petitioner, Abhihav Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging show cause notices dated March 20, 2020 (Annexures P/5 and P/6). The respondents, including the Superintendent (Audit) CGST and Central Excise Circle VI and other CGST authorities, subsequently filed an interlocutory application. This application enclosed an order dated March 2, 2021, which was passed as a consequence of the show cause notice at Annexure P-5. Additionally, another order dated March 3, 2022, pertaining to the show cause notice at Annexure P-6, was placed on record. Given that orders have now been passed in relation to the show cause notices, the High Court deemed it unnecessary to entertain the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging show cause notices when subsequent orders have been passed by the concerned authorities? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner sought to quash the show cause notices on various grounds. The specific arguments made by the petitioner are not detailed in the judgment, as the court proceeded to decide the matter based on subsequent events. Respondents' Argument: The respondents submitted that orders have been passed in consequence of the show cause notices. They placed these orders on record, implying that the original challenge to the show cause notices had become infructuous or that the petitioner should pursue remedies against the subsequent orders.