2024 (12) TMI 659 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - non-compliance with principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Prima facie this does not appear to be a case of no notice/no hearing but at the highest a case of no adequate hearing. Besides in this case though Roznama reflects the signatures of the petitioner s representative this Roznama was not enclosed with the Petition. Before grounds of failure of natural justice are raised the petitioner must apply for and obtain the Roznama so that there is no variation between the averments in the petition and the contents of the Roznama - matters referred only to point out that this is not a fit case for departing from the practice of exhaustion of alternate remedies. This petition is dismissed but by granting the petitioner liberty.

Summary

Issues:
1. Error in disposal of the petition based on orders from a different petition.
2. Challenge to Order-in-Original by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax.
3. Allegation of lack of compliance with principles of natural justice.
4. Relegation of petitioner to an alternate remedy of appeal.
5. Filing of an appeal against the impugned order within a specified timeline.
6. Keeping all contentions open for the Appellate Authority to decide.
7. Clarification on the constitutional validity issue raised in the petition.

Analysis:
The High Court judgment addressed the issue of an error in the disposal of a petition based on orders from a different petition. The court acknowledged the mistake and recalled the previous order, restoring the petition for Admission/Disposal. The court issued a Rule and made it returnable immediately with the consent of the parties' counsel, ensuring procedural correctness.

Regarding the challenge to the Order-in-Original by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, the petitioner alleged a lack of compliance with principles of natural justice. The court noted that while the petitioner had an alternate remedy of appeal against the impugned order, the petitioner argued for setting aside the order due to a lack of adequate hearing post the final reply submission. The court examined the proceedings' Roznama and found the issue of denial of opportunity of hearing to be arguable but not conclusive, reiterating the importance of exhausting alternate remedies before approaching the court directly.

The court declined to entertain the petition, emphasizing the importance of pursuing the appeal route first. The petitioner was given liberty to file an appeal within a specified timeline, with the assurance that the Appellate Authority would consider all contentions, including the alleged failure of natural justice. The court kept all contentions open for the Appellate Authority to decide, including the constitutional validity issue raised in the petition's prayer clause, which was explicitly left open for future consideration.

In conclusion, the petition was dismissed, but the petitioner was granted liberty to pursue the appeal route, ensuring that all issues and contentions could be addressed by the Appellate Authority. The judgment highlighted the significance of exhausting alternate remedies and clarified the procedural steps to be followed in addressing the petitioner's grievances effectively.