2024 (12) TMI 661 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - requirement of pre-deposit for appeal - HELD THAT - The circumstance that a pre-deposit must be made cannot at least in the facts of this case be regarded as a factor that dilutes the efficaciousness of the alternate remedy provided by the statute. Secondly the alleged non-consideration of some of the documents cannot at least to depart from the practice of exhaustion of alternate remedies be considered a complete breach of the principles of natural justice. This is not a case of no notice or no opportunity but at the highest the allegation is about no adequate opportunity . These are matters which the Appellate Authority best examines. For the above reasons and by keeping all parties contentions open including the petitioner s contention about failure to consider the documents or failure of natural justice open it is declined to entertain these petitions but relegate the petitioners to avail of the alternate remedy of appeal. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Orders-in-Original by Deputy Commissioner of State GST; Consideration of documents submitted by petitioner; Efficacy of alternate remedy of appeal; Pre-deposit requirement for appeal; Breach of natural justice; Bar of alternative remedies.

Analysis:
The petitions before the High Court challenged the Orders-in-Original issued by the Deputy Commissioner of State GST. The petitioner argued that the two petitions could be disposed of together as they involved similar legal and factual issues but pertained to different financial years. The main contention raised was the alleged non-consideration of documents submitted by the petitioner, which was claimed to be a breach of natural justice. Additionally, the petitioner argued that the pre-deposit requirement for maintaining an appeal, amounting to 10% of the tax demand, made the appeal remedy less efficacious, rendering the alternate remedy inadequate.

The High Court considered the arguments presented by both parties and emphasized the importance of exhausting alternate statutory remedies before approaching the court. The Court noted that the requirement of a pre-deposit for appeals and the alleged non-consideration of some documents did not necessarily dilute the efficacy of the alternate remedy provided by the statute. The Court highlighted that the Appellate Authority was best suited to examine matters related to the alleged breach of natural justice and adequacy of opportunities provided during the adjudication process.

In a previous case, 'Oberoi Constructions vs. Union of India', the Court had discussed the principle of exhausting alternative remedies before seeking judicial intervention. Following the reasoning in that case, the High Court declined to entertain the present petitions but granted the petitioners the liberty to file appeals challenging the impugned orders before the Appellate Authority. The Court directed the petitioners to file the appeals within four weeks and instructed the Appellate Authority to consider the appeals on their merits without considering any limitation issues, given the timely filing of the petitions before the High Court.

Ultimately, the High Court disposed of the petitions with the liberty granted to the petitioners to pursue appeals as an alternate remedy. The Court emphasized that all concerned parties must adhere to the order, and any interim orders or applications were vacated and disposed of accordingly. No costs were awarded in the matter.