9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (10) TMI 1314 - HC - GSTMaintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Jurisdiction to issue SCN - discretion of the court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT - Prior to the passing of the impugned order dated 28.06.2024, a show cause notice dated 13.04.2023 was issued to the Petitioner, to which, the Petitioner submitted its reply and it is only thereafter that the impugned order dated 28.06.2024 has been passed. The issue relating to the show cause notice being without jurisdiction is said to have been raised by the Petitioner while submitting his reply before the Joint Commissioner, who has passed the impugned order dated 28.06.2024. Once the Petitioner submitted to this show cause notice dated 13.04.2023 by filing its reply, though raising an objection that the show cause notice was without jurisdiction, in our considered opinion, the appropriate remedy available to the Petitioner is to invoke the provisions of Section 107 of the CGST Act for challenging the impugned order dated 28.06.2024. It is well established that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary, hence, ordinarily such a discretion should not be exercised by this Court, in case there is any other statutory and efficacious remedy available to the person invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court - The discretion in such a situation may be exercised by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in case there are violations of principles of natural justice or the decision under challenge has not been taken by the competent authority. It is not the case of the Petitioner that the impugned order dated 28.06.2024 could not have been passed by the Joint Commissioner. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to impugned order dated 28.06.2024 and penalty imposed for tax evasion, challenge to show cause notice dated 13.04.2023, availability of alternate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, jurisdiction of the show cause notice, discretion of the court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Analysis: The judgment involves the challenge by a company engaged in the manufacture of non-alcoholic beverages against an impugned order dated 28.06.2024 passed by the Joint Commissioner, CGST Goa. The order confirmed several dues for the period from July 2017 to September 2021 under Section 74 of the CGST Act/Goa GST Act and imposed a penalty for tax evasion. The petitioner also contested the show cause notice dated 13.04.2023, which led to the impugned order. The High Court noted that the impugned order was appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act, and therefore, declined to entertain the writ petition due to the availability of an alternate and efficacious remedy for the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the writ petition should be entertained as it challenged not only the impugned order but also the validity of the show cause notice, against which no appeal was provided under the Act. The court, however, held that since the petitioner had submitted a reply to the show cause notice, raising objections to its jurisdiction, the appropriate remedy was to invoke Section 107 of the CGST Act to challenge the impugned order. The court emphasized that the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be exercised if a statutory remedy is available, except in cases of violations of natural justice or decisions by incompetent authorities. The court clarified that the challenge to the show cause notice on the grounds of issuing cumulative notices for multiple years could be considered by the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act. Ultimately, the court declined to entertain the petition but granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority under Section 107. It directed that any appeal filed by the petitioner should be considered and decided promptly in accordance with the law. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition due to the availability of an alternate statutory remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act for challenging the impugned order. The court highlighted the discretionary nature of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking relief through writ petitions.
|
