2019 (5) TMI 897 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy available - Liability of Interest - recovery proceedings u/s 79 of the CGST/SGST Act - Principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The present writ petition is highly misplaced for Section 107 of the Act clearly provides an efficacious alternative remedy to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. It is, indeed, a settled principle of law that generally, a writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked, in case the efficacious alternative remedy is available. Even otherwise, the petitioner has approached this Court in order to circumvent the efficacious alternative remedy. For, according to Section 107(6) of the Act, an appeal can be filed provided the appellant makes the statutory deposit before the appellate authority. It is only in order to escape the said liability, the petitioner has rushed to this Court - Even if the petitioner is of the opinion that the principles of natural justice have been violated, he is free to raise the said plea before the appellate authority. This Court is not inclined to invoke the writ jurisdiction - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice in passing recovery order without personal hearing, availability of alternative remedy under Section 107 of the Act, petitioner's attempt to circumvent statutory deposit requirement for appeal.

The judgment addresses the petitioner's grievance against orders dated 25.02.2019 and 28.02.2019 passed by respondent No.2. The first order requested the petitioner to calculate interest on the entire amount, including Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed, and penalty under Section 122(iii) of the Goods and Services Act. The subsequent order directed the petitioner to pay interest, warning of recovery proceedings under Section 79 of the CGST/SGST Act in case of non-compliance.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the recovery order of 25.02.2019 was issued without granting a personal hearing, followed swiftly by the order of 28.02.2019. Despite the petitioner's response on 25.03.2019, respondent No.2 proceeded to attach the petitioner's bank account on 29.04.2019, leading to the current petition before the Court.

The Court noted that Section 107 of the Act provides an alternative remedy for the petitioner to appeal to the appellate authority. It emphasized the general principle that the writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when an efficacious alternative remedy is available. The petitioner's rush to the Court was seen as an attempt to avoid making the statutory deposit required for filing an appeal under Section 107(6) of the Act.

The Court concluded that the petitioner's invocation of the writ jurisdiction was misplaced, as the petitioner could have raised the issue of violation of natural justice before the appellate authority. Therefore, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition and dismissed it, along with any pending miscellaneous petitions, without imposing costs.