2020 (8) TMI 774 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal - Interest on delayed payment of GST - HELD THAT - Although various contentions are raised in this writ petition in its challenge against the notice, the petitioner should be relegated to the alternate remedy of filing his objections to Ext.P3 notice, and getting the same adjudicated before the adjudicating authority, before approaching this Court in a challenge against any decision taken by the respondent. At this stage of the proceedings where all that is issued to the petitioner is a notice, and he has an opportunity to file objections to the same, I do not deem it necessary to admit this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge against notice demanding interest for delayed GST payment, availability of alternate remedy, requirement to file formal objections before approaching the court, dismissal of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directions for filing objections and adjudication process.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged Ext.P3 notice demanding interest for delayed GST payment. The court opined that the petitioner should utilize the alternate remedy of filing objections to the notice and having them adjudicated before approaching the court. The court emphasized that at the current stage, where only a notice has been issued, it is not necessary to admit the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was advised to file formal objections to Ext.P3 notice and have the matter adjudicated by the appropriate authority on its merits. Consequently, the writ petition challenging the notice was dismissed.

2. Acknowledging the petitioner's need for time to file formal objections, the court directed that if the petitioner submits formal objections to the 6th respondent in response to Ext.P3 notice, the respondent must present both the notice and the objections to the adjudicating authority for a thorough examination of the raised issue. The adjudicating authority was further instructed to issue orders after hearing the petitioner within three months from the date of receiving a copy of the objections. This direction ensured a timely resolution of the matter following the due process of adjudication.

This judgment underscores the importance of exhausting alternate remedies before seeking judicial intervention, highlights the significance of filing formal objections, and emphasizes the role of the adjudicating authority in resolving disputes related to tax matters efficiently.