2025 (4) TMI 500 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Violation of the principles of natural justice - lack of opportunity for the petitioner to be heard - HELD THAT - From the perusal of the documents filed with the writ petition and order dated 08.04.2024 it is very much clear that the reply filed by the petitioner on 08.04.2024 has been duly considered by the Assessing Authority and prior to the passing of the impugned order the Assessing Authority has provided the proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner therefore the plea taken by the petitioner in the instant writ petition is not correct and judgments relied by the petitioner are no help to him. In the case of THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX AND OTHERS VERSUS M/S COMMERCIAL STEEL LIMITED 2021 (9) TMI 480 - SUPREME COURT the Hon ble Apex Court has observed that respondents therein had a statutory remedy under Section 107 of CGST Act. The arguments which have been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are very well to him while filing for statutory appellate remedy. Therefore looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced herein above this Court at this stage is not inclined to entertain this petition. However this Court is inclined to grant liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the concerned appellate authority according to the provisions of the Act within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the same shall be decided by the appellate authority in accordance with law within a reasonable period of time without raising objection to limitation. Petition disposed off.

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The primary issues considered in the judgment were:

Whether the order dated 08.04.2024 by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax was issued in violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically concerning the alleged lack of opportunity for the petitioner to be heard.
Whether the petitioner had exhausted all statutory remedies before approaching the High Court, as required by the Chhattisgarh Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Alleged Violation of Principles of Natural Justice

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The petitioner argued that the order was passed without considering their reply to the second Show Cause Notice (SCN-2) and without providing an opportunity for a hearing, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The petitioner cited previous High Court decisions to support this claim.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found that the Assessing Authority had duly considered the petitioner's reply submitted on 08.04.2024 before passing the impugned order. The Court noted that the petitioner was provided with a proper opportunity for a hearing.
Key Evidence and Findings: The Court examined the sequence of events and documents, including the issuance of FORM ASMT-10, SCN-1, SCN-2, and the petitioner's replies, concluding that due process was followed.
Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principles of natural justice and found no breach, as the petitioner had been given opportunities to present their case.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court dismissed the petitioner's reliance on other High Court judgments, stating that the specific circumstances of this case did not support the petitioner's claims.
Conclusions: The Court concluded that there was no violation of natural justice, as the petitioner had been given adequate opportunities to respond.

2. Exhaustion of Statutory Remedies

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The respondent argued that the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory remedies available under Sections 107 and 109 of the Chhattisgarh Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, which require an appeal to the Additional Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal before approaching the High Court.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court referenced the decision in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. Versus M/s Commercial Steel Limited, emphasizing the necessity of pursuing statutory remedies before filing a writ petition.
Key Evidence and Findings: The Court found that the petitioner had not pursued the available statutory remedies and had directly approached the High Court.
Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the legal requirement for exhausting statutory remedies and found that the petitioner had bypassed these procedures.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court rejected the petitioner's arguments for immediate High Court intervention, highlighting the availability of alternative remedies.
Conclusions: The Court concluded that the petition was not maintainable due to the petitioner's failure to exhaust statutory remedies.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: The Court stated, "The arguments which have been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are very well to him while filing for statutory appellate remedy."
Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforced the principle that parties must exhaust statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention through writ petitions.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Court dismissed the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to file an appeal before the appropriate appellate authority within 30 days, emphasizing the need to follow statutory procedures.