9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 704 - HC - GSTValidity of order passed u/s 73 of GST Act - Maintainability of Writ petition - Alternative remedy of appeal - Denial of Input Tax Credit (ITC) - Non-Issuance of Show Cause Notice - notice was issued as part of the scrutiny proceedings under Section 61 C-GST Act - personal hearing was granted and attended by the petitioner - HELD THAT - To be noted, a statutory appeal against the impugned order is available to the writ petitioner under Section 107 of C-GST Act. There is no disputation about this obtaining position of law. To be noted, in Greatship case 2022 (9) TMI 896 - SUPREME COURT , Hon'ble Supreme Court has traced many of the aforementioned case laws, more particularly Dunlop India 1984 (11) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT , Satyawati Tandon case laws 2010 (7) TMI 829 - SUPREME COURT , has returned its finding and reiterated the ratio regarding alternate remedy Rule in fiscal law statutes. To be noted, Greatship case is a matter arising under Maharashtra Value Added Tax, 2002, Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and it is in that context that alternate remedy rule was considered. In the light of the narrative and dispositive reasoning set out thus far, both the points urged by learned counsel for writ petitioner does not find favour with this Court in the case on hand. This means curtains are dropped qua the captioned writ petition but it is open to the writ petitioner to avail the statutory appeal remedy under Section 107 subject of course to Limitation and pre-deposit if any.
Issues:
Challenge to an order under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 without a Show Cause Notice (SCN) and perfunctory handling of objections in response to a notice under Section 61 of the Act. Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged an order dated 06.09.2021 under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (C-GST Act) for lack of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) as required by subsection (2) of Section 73. The petitioner's objections in response to the notice under Section 61 of the C-GST Act were allegedly perfunctorily dealt with without dispositive reasoning. 2. The Revenue counsel pointed out that a notice was issued to the taxable person before the impugned order, and the petitioner was given a personal hearing despite not attending on 24.06.2021 and 08.07.2021. The petitioner disputed the claim of being put on notice for a personal hearing, leading to a factual dispute. 3. The petitioner also argued that the reply to the notice under Section 61 was not satisfactorily addressed. The Court acknowledged this as a valid ground for appeal and highlighted the availability of a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the C-GST Act. 4. The judgment emphasized the principle of alternate remedy rule, citing various legal precedents like Dunlop India case, Satyawati Tondon case, Commercial Steel case, K.C. Mathew case, and State of Maharashtra v. Greatship (India) Limited. The Court reiterated that the alternate remedy rule is a discretionary self-imposed restraint, especially in matters involving fiscal law statutes. 5. The Court clarified that while the alternate remedy rule is not absolute, it should be exercised with caution, especially in cases concerning recovery of public dues or taxes. The judgment highlighted the need to exhaust statutory remedies before seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition and the Writ Miscellaneous Petition (WMP) while preserving the petitioner's right to avail the statutory appeal remedy under Section 107, subject to limitations and pre-deposit requirements. The Court emphasized that the Appellate Authority should consider the appeal independently and in accordance with the law, unaffected by the writ petition's outcome. Conclusion: The judgment addressed the issues raised by the petitioner regarding the lack of a Show Cause Notice and the perfunctory handling of objections under the C-GST Act. It underscored the importance of exhausting alternate statutory remedies before approaching the Court under Article 226, ultimately dismissing the writ petition but allowing the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal remedy under Section 107.
|
