2024 (3) TMI 1329 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - Challenge to report of preliminary inquiry - HELD THAT - The writ petition is dismissed as premature with liberty to petitioner to file fresh petition in case any adverse order has been passed against the him.

Summary

Issues: Premature challenge to preliminary inquiry report

The judgment by the High Court dealt with the issue of whether a writ petition challenging a preliminary inquiry report was premature. The court, presided over by Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, J., heard arguments from both sides. The Additional Advocate General raised a preliminary objection, contending that the petition was premature as no final order had been issued against the petitioner, only a preliminary inquiry report was under challenge. The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate R.K. Ojha, argued that as the petitioner had retired and been re-employed, no departmental proceedings could be initiated against him. The court noted that only a preliminary inquiry had been conducted, and the matter had been referred for further investigation. The court ultimately dismissed the writ petition as premature, granting the petitioner the liberty to file a fresh petition if an adverse order was passed against him in the future.

In this case, the primary issue revolved around the timing of the challenge to the preliminary inquiry report. The court considered the arguments put forth by both the Additional Advocate General and the petitioner's counsel. The Additional Advocate General contended that since no final order had been issued against the petitioner and only a preliminary inquiry report was being challenged, the petition was premature and not maintainable. On the other hand, the petitioner's counsel argued that due to the petitioner's retirement and re-employment status, departmental proceedings could not be initiated against him. The court carefully analyzed the submissions and observed that only a preliminary inquiry had taken place, with further investigation pending.

The court's decision to dismiss the writ petition as premature was based on the fact that no final order had been passed against the petitioner at the time of the petition. The court emphasized that the challenge to the preliminary inquiry report was premature, given the absence of any adverse order against the petitioner. The court granted the petitioner the liberty to file a fresh petition if any adverse order was issued against him in the future. This decision highlighted the importance of the timing of legal challenges and the need for a clear basis for challenging administrative actions.