2022 (5) TMI 1454 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternate remedy - Violation of principles of natural justice - opportunity of hearing to the petitioner provided or not - HELD THAT - It is found that the impugned order was passed after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after taking into consideration the objection filed by the petitioner against the show-cause notice. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the reasons given in the order rejecting the petitioner s reply to the show-cause notice, it cannot be said that there was violation of principles of natural justice and this writ Court cannot go into the sufficiency of the reason given by the respondent authority concerned. Had there been no reason at all or no opportunity of hearing had been given to the petitioner or the order had been without jurisdiction, then this writ Court could have interfered with the same. This Court cannot go into the sufficiency of the reason or the merit of the impugned order and this is the job of the appellate authority. This writ petition is dismissed in view of availability of the alternative remedy which the petitioner may avail, if so advised.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to an order of violation of natural justice in a GST matter.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 28th December, 2021, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of the State GST authority, alleging a violation of principles of natural justice. The High Court observed that the impugned order was issued after providing the petitioner with an opportunity to be heard and considering the objections raised by the petitioner against the show-cause notice. The Court emphasized that if the petitioner disagreed with the reasons provided in the order rejecting their reply to the show-cause notice, it did not amount to a violation of natural justice. The Court clarified that it could not assess the sufficiency of the reasons given in the order, as that falls within the jurisdiction of the appellate authority. The Court highlighted that interference by the writ Court would only be warranted in cases where there was no reason provided, no opportunity of hearing granted, or if the order was passed without jurisdiction.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition (WPA 7816 of 2022) on the basis of the availability of an alternative remedy that the petitioner could pursue. The Court explicitly stated that its decision to dismiss the petition was not based on a review of the merits of the impugned order of cancellation of registration, but solely due to the existence of an alternative legal recourse. The Court made it clear that it refrained from delving into the specifics of the impugned order, as that was the responsibility of the appellate authority. Additionally, the Court ordered that there would be no costs imposed on either party and directed the expeditious provision of a certified copy of the order upon request.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment underscores the importance of following procedural fairness and providing opportunities for parties to present their case. It highlights the distinction between the roles of the writ Court and the appellate authority in reviewing administrative decisions, emphasizing that the sufficiency of reasons and the merit of orders fall within the appellate authority's purview. The judgment serves as a reminder of the availability of alternative legal remedies and the limitations of the writ Court in interfering with administrative decisions unless there are clear violations of natural justice or jurisdictional errors.