Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Shri Nitish Kumar, filed the present writ petition under Article 226 against the Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax CGST Commissionerate and others, arising out of an ongoing investigation. The prayers sought: replacement of the investigating officers (respondents No.2/3) with a responsible officer; recording of the petitioner's statement under CCTV as directed by the Supreme Court in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (SLP (Crl.) No.3543 of 2020); quashing of an order dated 22.11.2021 (Annexure P-7) passed without hearing the petitioner; and quashing of an email dated 14.12.2021 (Annexure P-10) issued by respondent No.4, alleged to violate Section 2(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Circular No.31/05/2018-GST dated 09.02.2018. The Division Bench of Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Alok Jain heard the matter on 12.10.2023; no one appeared for the petitioner even on the second call.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether any of the reliefs sought in the writ petition survived for adjudication in light of subsequent developments.
  2. Whether the impugned order dated 22.11.2021 and email dated 14.12.2021 warranted interference by the Court.
  3. Whether any further direction was required given the alternative remedies available to the petitioner.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • No submissions were advanced, as no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner despite the matter being called twice.
  • The petition, as originally framed, sought deployment of a responsible officer, CCTV-recorded statements, and quashing of the order and email referred to above.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Respondents No.2 and 3 have since been transferred, rendering the first prayer redundant.
  • The petitioner's statement has already been recorded and videographed pursuant to order dated 22.12.2021, and future recordings are retained in safe custody as noted in order dated 01.02.2022.
  • The order dated 22.11.2021 was passed by the Joint Commissioner as First Appellate Authority under the RTI Act, 2005, and is appealable under that Act.
  • Respondent No.4, the Superintendent of Central Tax, is itself an adjudicating authority under the CGST Act, 2017, so the email dated 14.12.2021 does not violate Section 2(4).
  • A show cause notice dated 02.04.2023 has already been issued, and the petitioner has the remedy of challenging it in accordance with law.

Court Order/Findings

  • The Court noted the reply filed by the respondents, which addressed each of the five prayers individually.
  • The officers had been transferred, the CCTV recording had been complied with, and alternative statutory remedies existed under the RTI Act and against the show cause notice.
  • Holding that "no further direction is required to be issued in the present petition," the Bench dismissed the writ petition.
  • Liberty was granted to the petitioner to revive the petition, if anything survived, within two months.

Important Clarification

  • Writ petitions seeking investigation-related directions become infructuous once the department demonstrates compliance, such as transfer of officers or CCTV recording as mandated in Paramvir Singh Saini.
  • Where an order impugned in a writ is appealable under a separate statute, such as the RTI Act, 2005, courts decline to entertain the writ and relegate the party to that remedy.
  • A Superintendent of Central Tax functioning as an adjudicating authority under the CGST Act is not disqualified from issuing communications on that basis alone.
  • Non-appearance of a petitioner, coupled with a satisfactory departmental reply, commonly results in dismissal, though courts may preserve a limited window (here, two months) for revival.

Sections Involved

  • Section 2(4), CGST Act, 2017 — defines "adjudicating authority" and was invoked to challenge the competence of the Superintendent of Central Tax to issue the impugned email.
  • Right to Information Act, 2005 — governs the appellate mechanism against orders of the First Appellate Authority, applicable to the order dated 22.11.2021.

Decision – In Favour of

The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous in view of compliance already made by the department and the alternative remedies available, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to revive it within two months if any grievance survives. The outcome is not a finding on merits either way; it closes the present petition without upholding the petitioner's specific prayers, making it, on balance, an outcome against the petitioner for the present, subject to the liberty granted.

Related Case Laws

No directly on-point case notes are currently published on this site.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
  • Case No.: CWP-25578-2021 (O&M)
  • Neutral Citation: 2023:PHHC:133826-DB
  • Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Jain
  • Date of Decision: 12.10.2023
  • Parties: Shri Nitish Kumar vs Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax CGST Commissionerate & ors.

Link to Download the Order

Download the full judgment (PDF)

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.