Authority: Calcutta High Court, Sayandeep Court 3

Order Date: 08‑07‑2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Jac Olivol Products Private Limited & others, represented by advocates Ankit Kanodia, Megha Agarwal, Tulika Roy, S. Ojha, Piyush Khatian.
  • Respondents: The Joint Commissioner of State Tax Bureau of Investigation (South Bengal) & others, represented by Sr. Adv. Manju Agarwal and counsel Bijitesh Mukherjee, Manasi Mukherjee.
  • The petition challenges a show‑cause notice issued by the Joint Commissioner for the tax period October 2022 to March 2023, alleging that the notice exceeds the officer’s jurisdiction.
  • Petitioners rely on the notification dated 20 Nov 2019 (effective 1 Dec 2019) which confers investigation jurisdiction under sub‑section 2 of Section 4 of the WEGST/CGST Act, but does not empower the officer to issue a show‑cause notice under Section 73.
  • The notification’s Clause 4 and Clause 5 define territorial and extent of jurisdiction, limiting enforcement to goods storage or vehicle interception within the officer’s zone, not to issuance of show‑cause notices.
  • Petitioners cite three earlier writ petitions—S‑Gen Consortium Infra Private Limited & anr. (WPA 4428 2026), MI Telecom (WPA 23839 2024), and Poulami Ghoshal (WPO 819 2024)—where similar jurisdictional challenges were entertained.

Court Observations & Directions

  • The Court acknowledges the jurisdictional issue raised and, on a prima facie basis, decides the writ petition should be heard.
  • However, noting that the show‑cause notice has already been issued, the Court directs the petitioners to file a response to the notice and to actively participate in the proceedings.
  • The respondent (Joint Commissioner) is free to decide on the show‑cause notice, but any decision shall not be enforced against the petitioners until the writ petition is disposed of or a further order is issued, whichever occurs earlier.
  • The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the above observations and directions.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition is disposed of; petitioners must respond to the show‑cause notice and engage in the investigation, while the respondent’s enforcement action remains stayed pending final resolution of the writ.

Topics: Taxation, Legal Jurisdiction