M/S GARG ENTERPRISES vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CGST AND CX SILIGURI COMMISSIONERATE AND ANR

6
02.09.2026
S.Seal
Ct.9.
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI
APPELLATE SIDE

WPA 991 of 2026

M/s. Garg Enterprises
Versus
Additional Commissioner, Central
Goods and Services Tax and Central
Excise, Siliguri Commissionerate & Anr.


Mr. Jatin Harjai
Mr. Abhilash Mittal
Ms. H. N. Pradhan
…For Petitioner

Mr. Ratan Banik
Mr. Biswaraj Agarwal
… For Respondents.



1. Affidavit in opposition filed in Court today be kept
on record.
2. Challenging the order passed under Section 74 of
the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as
‘the said Act’), for the tax period from January 2020 to
November 2023, the instant writ petition has been filed.
3. The petitioner questions the above proceedings
and the order on the following grounds:-
(a) That the pre-show cause notice issued in Form DRC
1A has not been signed by the proper officer/has
invalid signature.
(b) That the show cause issued under Section 74 of the
said Act in Form DRC 01, has been issued without
considering the response to the pre show-cause.

2

WPA 991 of 2026
(c) That the show cause notice issued in Form DRC01 is
vague, non specific, no specific taxable event or
essential ingredients to invoke Section 74 of the said
Act has been disclosed.
(d) The show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the
said Act deals with different periods which had been
clubbed together, the same is not permissible in law.
(e) Though in terms of the show cause, the petitioner
was required to be submit its response with the
Additional Commissioner, Central Goods and
Services Tax and Central Excise, Siliguri
Commissionerate and despite the petitioner
responding to such authority, the hearing took place
before different authority. As such the authority who
received the response is not the same who had heard
the matter and had passed the order.
4. According to the learned advocate for the
petitioner, the aforesaid would constitute not only an
irregularity in procedure but a defect in jurisdiction as
well. As such the order passed by the proper officer
cannot be sustained. It is still further submitted that the
order passed by the proper office was with a pre-
determined notion as he did not take into consideration
the objections raised by the petitioner.
5. The learned advocate for the petitioner would
submit that though the petitioner has an alternative
remedy, however, since the jurisdictional issue has been
raised, the petitioner had approached this Court.

3

WPA 991 of 2026
6. Having heard the learned advocates for the
parties, I find that the order impugned has been passed
th
on 27 March, 2026, the determination is not under
Section 73 but is under Section 74 of the said Act which
deals with fraud, willful misrepresentation and
suspension. In this context it may be noted that
previously the petitioner challenging the self-same show
cause notices had approached this Court in WPA 11 of
2026, however, later sought to withdraw the same to urge
all points in the reply to the show cause. By order dated
th
17 March, 2026, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court,
while permitting the petitioner to file its response to the
show-cause though belatedly, also granted liberty to the
proper officer to pass appropriate order in accordance
with law. No liberty was however, reserved to approach
this Court by bypassing the multi tiered adjudicatory
process in the form of statutory remedy. In this backdrop,
the matter is considered.
7. I find that the petitioner does not question the
order on the ground that the same has not been properly
signed by the proper officer or that the detailed show
cause was improperly signed but questions the summary
of the show cause notice in Form DRC01 as being not
appropriately signed as would corroborate the statements
made in the paragraph 1.9 of the petition.
8. On the above issue from the materials available on
record, I find that the documents disclosed by the
petitioner would demonstrate that the detailed show

4

WPA 991 of 2026
cause is available on the file. Though the petitioner claims
the same was not signed by the proper officer, I am of the
view that at this stage, there is no scope for this Court to
make such a determination in absence of the records
being produced. Further the records of personal hearing
which is also counter-signed by the petitioner’s advocate,
only notes that the pre show-cause notice in Form DRC
1A had invalid signatures. In my view, these are all
factual aspects and ordinarily cannot be gone into by the
writ Court. From the materials on record, it would
transpire that summary of the show cause notices
th
uploaded on the portal in Form DRC01 are all dated 14
August, 2025. The same duly identifies the demand and
the particular taxable period for which such show cause
notices have been issued. There is no clubbing of periods
in the summary of show-cause in From DRC 01, the
detailed reasons of the show-cause have been, however,
provided in a composite format. In this context, it must be
noted that serious allegations of smuggling of cement into
India from Bhutan and concealment of GST liability on
sale of smuggled cement is involved, which was unearthed
during investigation, as such the consolidated show-
cause was issued. The above aspect has been considered
by the proper officer.
9. On the aspect of the petitioner being heard before
a different authority than the authority before whom the
petitioner had filed his response, I find that it is an
admitted position that the authority who heard the

5

WPA 991 of 2026
petitioner was a proper officer within the meaning of the
said Act and it is the same proper office who had passed
the order. The petitioner had not only submitted its
response but was also heard and was represented by an
advocate. Insofar as the contention raised by the
petitioner and the order impugned does not take into
consideration the objection raised, I find that though
prima facie sufficient reason has been provided in the
aforesaid order, the order cannot be said to be non-
speaking, however, these are all disputed factual issues.
It is well-settled that there cannot be any piece meal
hearing. In any event, the petitioner has an alternative
remedy. The initial challenge by the petitioner questioning
the show cause notice was not entertained, the petitioner
in fact withdrew the petition with liberty only to respond
to the show cause and to be heard, no liberty was
reserved to approach this Court on the self-same cause of
action. However, the petitioner had chosen to challenge
the order by bypassing the statutory remedy.
10. It would appear from the scheme of the said Act
that the same provides for multi-tiered adjudicatory
process, in other words multiple opportunity is provided
to the registered tax payer/person chargeable with tax, to
question the determination made under Section 73/74 of
the said Act firstly, before the appellate authority then
before the appellate tribunal. However, at the same time,
the said act also provides for ample protection to the

6

WPA 991 of 2026
revenue by directing the mandatorily pre-deposit of a
percentage of the tax in dispute for availing such remedy.
11. In the instant case, in response to a query from
the Court, the learned Advocate for the petitioner would
submit that the petitioner is not inclined to make any
such deposit and is interested to invoke the extraordinary
writ jurisdiction of this Court without making payment of
such deposit. I find that when the statutory remedy is
available to a party and when ample safeguards has been
provided for, under the scheme of the statute both to the
registered tax payer as also to the department, this Court
ought not to entertain the petition of this nature
especially when the diverse factual issues would be
required to be gone into.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
13. This order shall, however, not stand in the way of
the petitioner from challenging the order passed under
Section 74 of the said Act before the appropriate forum, if
so advised in accordance with law.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied
for be given to the parties upon compliance with the
requisite formalities.

14.


(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)