Case Title: UBS Exports International Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Court: Calcutta High Court
Petition No.: WPA 1841 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 05.05.2025
Category of Dispute: Validity of Show Cause Notice / Alternative Remedy / Section 74 Proceedings
Relevant Sections: Section 74(9) of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017; Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Facts (Paras 2–5):
UBS Exports International Pvt. Ltd. challenged a show cause notice dated 2 July 2024 and a consequent adjudication order dated 21 November 2024 passed under Section 74(9) of the CGST/WBGST Act. The petitioner contended that the notice was invalid as it combined multiple tax periods in one proceeding, relying on Titan Company Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of GST (Madras HC, 2024), Veremax Technologie Services Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner of Central Tax (Karnataka HC, 2024:KHC 36293), and Bangalore Golf Club v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka HC). It was argued that such bunching contravenes the statutory scheme of assessment.
Questions (Paras 4–6):
Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition under Article 226 against a final order under Section 74 when the petitioner alleges that the foundational show cause notice is illegal for clubbing multiple tax periods, or whether the petitioner must first exhaust the alternative appellate remedy under Section 107.
Observations (Paras 7–9):
Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury noted that the GST Act provides a complete hierarchy of remedies, including appeal under Section 107. The petitioners had not challenged the show cause at the earlier stage and approached the Court only after the final order. The Court distinguished Titan Company Ltd. and Veremax Technologie Services Ltd., observing that in those cases, the issue of alternative remedy had not been raised or examined. The Court emphasized that a writ cannot be used to bypass the “multi-tiered adjudicatory process” envisaged under the Act. The delay and belated challenge indicated an attempt to stall the statutory mechanism.
Judgment (Paras 9–10):
The Court held that since an efficacious appellate remedy exists and no exceptional circumstances are shown, the writ petition is not maintainable. The Court dismissed the petition, observing that issues of validity of show cause notice and bunching of tax periods can be argued before the appellate authority. The petition was dismissed without costs.
Summary of Cases Cited
| Case | Court & Year | Issue | Verdict / Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| Titan Company Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of GST & CX | Madras HC (2024) | Single SCN covering multiple tax periods | SCN held invalid; proceedings quashed |
| Veremax Technologie Services Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner of Central Tax | Karnataka HC (2024:KHC 36293) | Consolidated SCN for multiple years | SCN declared fundamentally flawed |
| Bangalore Golf Club v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes | Karnataka HC | Improper initiation of proceedings | Writ allowed; procedural defect fatal |
Between Fine Lines (Practical Takeaway):
Businesses receiving a consolidated show cause notice covering multiple tax periods under Section 74 should challenge such defects before the adjudicating or appellate authority instead of approaching the High Court directly. The decision reinforces that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited when an effective appellate remedy is available, even if procedural defects are alleged in GST adjudication.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
