2023 (10) TMI 99 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Vague SCN - SCN does not specify the violation or infringement of any of the provisions of the Act - misuse of the e-way bills by the two firms - no evidence has either been provided or disclosed for misuse of E-way bill - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The respondent No. 2 has passed the impugned order after due consideration of the objections of the petitioner taken before him. There are no procedural impropriety committed by the respondent No. 2 in passing the impugned order. This is not a fit case where the statutory remedy of Appeal under Section 107 of the UPGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017 can be bypassed. All the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 107 of the Act before the Appellate Authority within a period of three weeks from today.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves a challenge to an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, under Sections 74 and 122 of the UPGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017 regarding tax liability determination for a financial year. The petitioner contests the legality of the proceedings and the order based on an illegal search and seizure, lack of specific violations mentioned in the show cause notice, and absence of evidence implicating the petitioner in the alleged tax liability.

Summary:

Issue 1: Legality of Proceedings and Order
The petitioner, a registered dealer, challenges an order determining a substantial tax liability for the financial year 2017-18 based on an illegal search and seizure conducted at their business premises. The petitioner argues that the show cause notice did not specify any violations of the Act and that the tax liability was imposed solely on the basis of a Special Intelligence Branch (SIB) report without concrete evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged misconduct. The petitioner contends that no adverse inference should have been drawn against them due to the lack of transactions with the firms mentioned in the SIB report. The petitioner cites various legal precedents to support their argument that the tax liability cannot be imposed without sufficient evidence.

Issue 2: Procedural Compliance and Alternative Remedy
The respondent argues that the impugned order was passed after due consideration of the petitioner's objections and that there was no procedural impropriety. The respondent contends that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the UPGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017, and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. The respondent relies on a Supreme Court decision to support the proposition that statutory remedies should be exhausted before resorting to writ petitions unless certain exceptions apply. The court agrees with the respondent, dismissing the writ petitions on the ground of the availability of an alternative remedy while granting the petitioner liberty to file an appeal within three weeks.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismisses the writ petitions challenging the tax liability determination order, emphasizing the availability of an alternative remedy through an appeal under Section 107 of the UPGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017. The court directs the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal process and grants the Appellate Authority the authority to decide the appeal on its merits, irrespective of any limitations, after providing the petitioner with a fair hearing.