2024 (5) TMI 1373 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - Non-speaking order - Jurisdiction of respondent No. 3 for passing the impugned order - - Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Invocation of Section 107 of KGST Act - Exemption from payment of tax. Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Admittedly, a show cause notice as required under law was issued before passing the impugned order and the petitioner has submitted his reply to the said show cause notice. The impugned order was came to be passed considering the reply given by the petitioner - The contention of the petitioner that it is not a speaking order also cannot be accepted as respondent No. 3 has discussed at length about the facts of the case, defence taken by the petitioner and also the reasons are assigned to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner is liable to pay tax - Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the order is not a speaking order that there is violation of principles of natural justice, cannot be accepted. Jurisdiction of respondent No. 3 for passing the impugned order - HELD THAT - It is respondent No. 3-the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes who is authority to pass the impugned order under KGST Act. Therefore, the contention taken by the petitioner that, respondent No. 3 had no jurisdiction to pass order also cannot be accepted. Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Invocation of Section 107 of KGST Act - HELD THAT - There are no justification for this Court to invoke the writ jurisdiction. Even though an attempt is made to contend that there is violation of principles of natural justice and the order is passed without jurisdiction - Unfortunately, in each and every case, such grounds are urged but it can be a ground to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court by bypassing the statutory remedy which is available for the petitioner. When the legislature in their wisdom make provisions to challenge the order passed under the enactment, simply because Section 107 of the Act compels the petitioner to deposit 10% of the disputed amount of tax as referred to under Section 107 (6) (b) of the KGST Act, such effective remedy cannot be bypassed. If this Court starts entertaining the writ petition on such flimsy ground, it will definitely have an effect of bypassing the statutory authorities to assume jurisdiction. The petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The petitioner seeks writ of certiorari to quash an order rejecting tax exemption, alleging violation of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction.

Violation of natural justice:
The petitioner argued that the impugned order lacked a speaking order and violated principles of natural justice. However, the court found that a show cause notice was issued, the petitioner responded, and the order provided detailed reasoning, concluding that there was no violation of natural justice.

Jurisdiction of respondent No. 3:
The petitioner contended that respondent No. 3 had no authority to pass the order. The court clarified that respondent No. 3, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, was indeed the competent authority under the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, rejecting the petitioner's argument of lack of jurisdiction.

Maintainability of writ petition:
The court addressed the maintainability of the writ petition, emphasizing that the petitioner failed to utilize the statutory appeal provision under Section 107 of the KGST Act. Despite claims of natural justice violation and lack of jurisdiction, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating that bypassing the statutory remedy was unjustified and could set a precedent for circumventing established legal procedures.