2024 (4) TMI 849 - HC - GST

Validity of impugned order u/s 73 of the CGST Act - appealable order under the CGST Act or not - fraud of criminal nature or not - HELD THAT - This Court fails to understand as to how the nature of allegation of fraud which is fully criminal in nature can be taken cognizance by the writ Court in exercise of constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while the impugned order is the adjudication order under Section 73 of the CGST Act which is an appellable order under the statute and adjudication proceeding has been initiated in accordance with law and the petitioner has participated in the proceeding and there is no allegation of denial of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. It is also not a case that the impugned statutory appellable adjudication order has been passed is non-speaking or is contrary to any specific provision of law or there is any procedural irregularity or that the authority who has passed the order is having inherent lack of jurisdiction. The allegation of the petitioner is purely criminal in nature and petitioner intends this Court to invoke constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by acting as an investigation authority or as an appellate authority over the impugned adjudication order and to reappreciate the material evidence and the issue raised is purely criminal in nature which is not within the ambit and scope of constitutional writ jurisdiction. The petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy by way of statutory appeal against the impugned adjudication order under the CGST Act.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves a challenge to an adjudication order u/s 73 of the CGST Act, alleging fraudulent misuse of tax payer's login credentials, and the jurisdiction of the writ court to intervene in criminal matters.

Adjudication Order Challenge:
The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 27th December, 2023 passed u/s 73 of the CGST Act, contending that a full-fledged investigation into criminal issues related to fraudulent misuse of login credentials should have been conducted. The petitioner claimed that their user ID and password were changed fraudulently, leading to wrongful gain for another party and wrongful loss for the petitioner.

Jurisdiction of Writ Court:
The court questioned the jurisdiction of the writ court to entertain criminal allegations under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It noted that the impugned order was appellable under the statute, the adjudication process was conducted lawfully, and the petitioner had the opportunity to participate without any denial of hearing. The court emphasized that the issue raised was purely criminal in nature, falling outside the scope of constitutional writ jurisdiction.

Precedent Distinction:
The judgment distinguished a precedent cited by the petitioner, where the court exercised extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 in a different context. The court highlighted that the cited case did not involve criminal allegations, unlike the present case. It was noted that the petitioner's reliance on the precedent was not applicable due to the differing factual and legal circumstances.

Dismissal and Alternative Remedy:
Ultimately, the writ petition was dismissed on the grounds of the availability of an alternative remedy through a statutory appeal against the impugned adjudication order u/s 73 of the CGST Act. The dismissal was clarified not to prevent the petitioner from seeking appropriate remedies through other legal forums in accordance with the criminal nature of the allegations.