9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 359 - HC - GSTMaintainability of petition - availability of an efficacious alternative statutory remedy - writ petition against a show cause notice is maintainable or not - HELD THAT - Various grounds have been raised while challenging the show cause notice however the fact remains that the Respondent No. 2 has only issued a show cause notice and the petitioner has been asked to explain within 30 days as to why GST cannot be imposed and recovered from the petitioner. The Apex Court in the case of HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGE (P) LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2014 (9) TMI 585 - SUPREME COURT in which it is held that - when the statute provides for statutory appeal the said remedy is to be availed by the litigating parties . In HAMEED KUNJU VERSUS NAZIM 2017 (7) TMI 1414 - SUPREME COURT the Apex Court held that any petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India should be dismissed in limine where there is statutory provision of appeal. In another case ANSAL HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION LTD. VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 2016 (3) TMI 1435 - SUPREME COURT it is held that when there statutory appeal is provided then the said remedy has to be availed. In view of the aforesaid and also looking to the fact of availability of an efficacious alternative statutory remedy it is not found proper to entertain this petition - The petition is dismissed on the ground of efficacious alternative statutory remedy.
Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the challenge against a show cause notice issued by Respondent No. 2 alleging GST liability on manufacturing and selling beer under specific brand names. Details of the judgment: 1. Challenge against show cause notice: The petitioner challenged the show cause notice dated 30.06.2022, contending that the activities of manufacturing and selling beer under specific brand names are not liable to GST. The petitioner argued that the amounts earned and retained by the Contractual Bottling Unit are not subject to GST, and it is UBL that should be responsible for GST as it provides services by granting representation rights. The petitioner sought to set aside the show cause notice on the grounds of arbitrariness and unreasonableness. 2. Legal position on writ petitions against show cause notices: The petitioner cited legal precedents to support the maintainability of the writ petition against the show cause notice, emphasizing that when a notice is issued with premeditation, a writ petition can be entertained. However, the respondent opposed the petition, stating that there is an efficacious remedy available to contest the show cause notice before the adjudicating authority. 3. Court's decision and legal precedents: The Court considered various grounds raised by the petitioner but ultimately dismissed the petition on the basis of the availability of an alternative statutory remedy. Referring to legal precedents, the Court highlighted that when a statutory appeal is provided, it should be availed by the litigating parties. The Court emphasized that entertaining a writ petition against a mere show cause notice is not appropriate when there is a statutory remedy in place. 4. Final decision and liberty to avail alternative remedy: The Court allowed the application for dismissal of the petition and dismissed the petition on the grounds of an alternative statutory remedy being available. The petitioner was granted liberty to avail the alternative remedy in accordance with the law if advised to do so. No costs were awarded in the matter. This judgment underscores the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention against show cause notices, in line with established legal principles and precedents.
|
