2019 (12) TMI 161 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal - Principles of natural justice - non-speaking order - only contention is that the impugned order is an unreasoned order and is in breach of the principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Having regard to the fact that the petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), this court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India in the absence of existence of any factor set out in the above decision for entertaining a writ petition against an order of the adjudicating authority. The petitions are accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order-in-original for confiscation of vehicles under CGST Act, maintainability of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
The petitioners challenged a common order-in-original dated 1st November, 2019, by the Additional Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, Vadodara-II, which ordered the confiscation of vehicles subject to the petitions. The respondent argued that the petitions were not maintainable as the petitioners had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under section 107 of the CGST Act. The petitioners contended that the impugned order was unreasoned and without jurisdiction, making the petitions under Article 226 maintainable.

The respondent raised a preliminary contention regarding the maintainability of the petitions, emphasizing the availability of an appeal remedy under the CGST Act. The petitioners argued that the impugned order lacked reasons and relied on a previous court decision where an unreasoned order was deemed vitiated. The court noted that the impugned order was passed under the CGST Act, and while it lacked reasoning, it did not lack jurisdiction, leading to a discussion on the breach of natural justice principles.

Regarding the breach of natural justice, the court examined the show cause notice issuance and the opportunity of hearing provided to the petitioners. Despite some issues with summons delivery, the court found that the petitioners were served with the notice and had a chance to be heard, concluding that there was no breach of natural justice. The court also addressed the argument that the impugned order was a non-speaking order, refuting this claim based on the contents of the order and citing a previous court decision that did not support the petitioners' case.

The court referred to a Supreme Court decision highlighting the rule of alternative remedy, stating that when a statutory forum exists for grievance redressal, a writ petition should not be entertained. Considering the availability of an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226. The court dismissed the petitions as not maintainable, clarifying that the impugned order was not examined on merits, and any challenge should be brought before the appellate authority without influence from the current judgment.