2024 (4) TMI 952 - HC - GST

Validity Of Order passed by Joint Commissioner of State Tax - No opportunity of hearing - directed to pay / reverse the alleged ITC claimed - HELD THAT - Admittedly the impugned order has been passed after scrutiny of returns u/s 61 of the Act 2017 and it has been passed u/s 73 of the Act 2017. Under the Act 2017 there is specific provision for filing appeal before the appellate authority if there is any grievance to the assessee from the impugned order but without preferring appeal the petitioner has directly approached before this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Since there is already alternative efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner to file appeal against the impugned order hence I do not feel inclined to entertain this petition. Accordingly the writ petition is hereby dismissed reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to challenge the impugned order before the appropriate authority in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the legality of an order passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, the petitioner's right to a fair hearing, and the availability of alternative remedies under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Legality of Impugned Order:
The petitioner challenged an order dated 29.12.2023 passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Raipur, directing the petitioner to pay/reverse an alleged Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed. The petitioner argued that the order was passed without affording a proper opportunity of hearing, making it unsustainable in the eyes of the law. On the other hand, respondents contended that the order was issued after due opportunity was given to the petitioner. The court noted that the impugned order was passed under Section 73 of the Act, 2017, and highlighted the provision for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Act. The court emphasized that the petitioner could challenge the order through the appellate authority, and as such, the petition was dismissed due to the availability of an alternative remedy.

Fair Hearing and Alternative Remedy:
The court acknowledged that the impugned order was issued following scrutiny under Section 61 of the Act, 2017, and under Section 73 of the same Act. It was observed that the Act provides a specific provision for filing an appeal before the appellate authority in case of grievances with the order. Despite the availability of an alternative remedy through the appeal process, the petitioner directly approached the court invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction. The court emphasized that since an alternative efficacious remedy was available to the petitioner in the form of filing an appeal, the court declined to entertain the petition. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, granting the petitioner the liberty to challenge the impugned order before the appropriate authority as per the law.