2025 (1) TMI 252 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - challenge to adjudication order passed under Section 73 (9) of the M.G.S.T. Act, 2017, the C.G.S.T. Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the I.G.S.T. Act, 2017 and the allied enactments - HELD THAT - It is afraiding, in the wake of the fact that an efficacious remedy of statutory appeal is available to the petitioner, accepting for the sake of arguments that his request seeking time to respond to the show cause notice was not considered favourably, there are no reason to make exception and exercise the power under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appellate authority would be able even to go into the stand of the petitioner of breach of principles of natural justice while passing the adjudication order - petition dismissed.

Summary

In the case before the Bombay High Court, the petitioner challenged an adjudication order issued under Section 73(9) of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (M.G.S.T. Act), the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (C.G.S.T. Act), and Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (I.G.S.T. Act). The petitioner contended that the order was issued without granting an opportunity for a hearing, thus justifying the invocation of the Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

However, the Court, comprising Justices Mangesh S. Patil and Shailesh P. Brahme, emphasized the availability of a statutory remedy under Section 107 of the C.G.S.T. Act, which provides for an appeal process. The Court noted that this statutory remedy serves as a bar to exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. The Court further stated that the appellate authority is competent to address the petitioner's claims, including any alleged breach of the principles of natural justice.

Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, granting the petitioner the liberty to pursue the statutory appeal process.