2024 (4) TMI 761 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Challenge to impugned adjudication order and SCN - petitioner participated in the impugned adjudication proceeding subsequent to the impugned show cause notice by availing opportunity of personal hearing - HELD THAT - On perusal of the impugned adjudication order it is found that the same has been passed neither in violation of principle of natural justice nor the petitioner was denied opportunity of personal hearing nor the impugned order has been passed by the authority having inherent lack of jurisdiction nor the impugned order is a non-speaking order nor any constitutional validity of any provision of law is involved in this writ petition which are the criteria for invoking the constitutional writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in spite of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as appears from record this Writ Court cannot act as an appellate authority over the impugned adjudication order and more particularly in the facts and circumstances of this case recorded herein above and on the ground of availability of alternative remedy by way of statutory appeal against the impugned adjudication order and proceeding in which petitioner has participated the petition cannot be entertained. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to CGST adjudication order and show-cause notice.

Summary:
The High Court of Calcutta heard arguments from both parties regarding a writ petition challenging an adjudication order and a show-cause notice issued under the CGST Act. The petitioner participated in the adjudication proceeding after the show-cause notice and the adjudicating authority considered all facts, legal provisions, and judgments presented by the petitioner. The impugned order detailed the facts, submissions, legal issues, and citations. The Court noted that the impugned order was not in violation of natural justice principles, the petitioner was not denied a personal hearing, and there was no lack of jurisdiction. The order was not a non-speaking order, and no constitutional validity issue was raised. The Court found that it could not act as an appellate authority over the adjudication order due to the availability of a statutory appeal. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed as there was an alternative remedy through a statutory appeal, and the petitioner had participated in the adjudication process.

This judgment emphasizes the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.