2024 (4) TMI 893 - HC - GST

Appealable Order - Validity of final assessment order - Return of the documents - violation of the principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The submission as advanced by the petitioner s counsel with respect to the return of the documents raises a disputed question of fact. There is specific mention in the order that the documents were returned. The question whether they were returned or not returned or said P. Nagesh, was the person authorized by the petitioner to receive those documents or not, deserve not to be entered into and decided, in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction, being the disputed questions of fact, might be requiring proof of so many other factual aspects. Consequently, we do not find any ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, on the argument advanced, so as to entertain the writ petition and to by-pass the statutory remedy of appeal. The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of statutory alternative remedy for the period with effect from April, 2018 to January, 2023. It is clarified that the writ petition survives for the period from the July, 2017 to March 2018.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to order dated 16.12.2023 for the period from July 2017 to January 2023, and DRC-07 proceedings for the same period.

For the period July 2017 to March 2018:
The petitioner's counsel sought similarity in the present case to another case before the Court. The respondent's counsel had no objection to following a similar order and requested time to file a counter affidavit. The Court passed an order similar to a previous one, granting protection to the petitioner for this period.

For the period April 2018 to January 2023:
The petitioner argued that the challenge applicable to the previous period did not apply here. The Government Pleader raised a preliminary objection, stating the order was appealable. The petitioner claimed that certain documents were not returned by the Tax Authorities, hindering a proper reply. The impugned order mentioned the return of documents through an auditor, which the petitioner disputed. The Court held that the issue of document return raised a factual dispute not suitable for writ jurisdiction, dismissing the petition for this period but clarifying its survival for the earlier period.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the writ petition for the period from April 2018 to January 2023 due to the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal, while clarifying its survival for the period from July 2017 to March 2018. No costs were awarded, and any pending miscellaneous petitions were closed accordingly.