Petitions Challenging Reports Simply On Basis Of Investigation Which Is At Preliminary Stage Are Not Maintainable: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed the petitions filed by Hahnemann’s Jac Olivol Group of Products Private Limited (petitioners) challenging the preliminary reports issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Revenue, Bureau of Investigation, holding that the petitions were premature, as the investigation was still at a preliminary stage.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Md. Nizamuddin observed that “what the petitioners have challenged in these writ petitions is a mere preliminary report based on investigation which is at preliminary stage and that the petitioners have been given several opportunities to file objection to the same, if they have got any, against the said preliminary reports and also several opportunities of personal hearing have been provided to the petitioners which they voluntarily did not avail and that the petitioners have not annexed to the writ petitions any of the objections or response which they have filed from time to time”.

Advocate Ankit Kanodia appeared for the Petitioners, whereas Advocate A. Ray appeared for the Respondents.

In these writ petitions, the petitioners had challenged the preliminary reports dated 2nd June 2023, which were issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Revenue, Bureau of Investigation. The preliminary reports sought objections from the petitioners, if they had any, against the contents of the reports.

The petitioners contested the validity of these preliminary reports on the alleged ground that the said officer lacked the jurisdiction to demand objections from the petitioners or require them to participate in a personal hearing related to the reports.

In response to the writ petition, the Additional Government Pleader argued that the petition was premature and misconceived. It was submitted that the Bureau of Investigation's exercise was currently at the preliminary stage of an investigation, and to adhere to the principle of natural justice, the Deputy Commissioner of Revenue, Bureau of Investigation had sought objections from the petitioners based on the investigation's findings. However, the petitioners did not avail themselves of the opportunity to file objections or attend personal hearings provided by the authority.

The pleader further stated that the petitioners mistakenly referred to the preliminary reports as ‘show-cause’ notices and challenged the jurisdiction of the alleged show-cause, whereas the reports were merely seeking objections from the petitioners and nothing more, as evident from the heading of the said report.

It was further emphasized that officers posted at the Head Quarters and Zonal Offices of the Bureau of Investigation had been entrusted with the power to investigate under their territorial jurisdiction.

The Bench noted that the petitioners had been given multiple opportunities to file objections, if they had any against the said preliminary reports.

Additionally, the petitioners were provided with several opportunities for personal hearings, but they chose not to avail themselves of these opportunities voluntarily, added the Bench.

Thus, the High Court dismissed the petitions as premature.

Cause Title: Hahnemann’s Jac Olivol Group of Products Private Limited and Anr. v. The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Bureau of Investigation, South Bengal HQ and Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment