9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1636X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could have raised in the instant proceedings. This Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition insofar as the challenge to the impugned order dated 12.08.2024 on the ground of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy. However, the Petitioner herein would be at liberty to file an appeal under Section 107 of the AGST Act, 2017. This Court had perused the materials on record and there is no mention as to how much amount/amounts lying in the bank accounts of the Petitioner No. 2 and his relatives which have been frozen. There is also no mention as to whether the Petitioners have other bank account(s). It is also clear from the mandate of Section 107 (6) (b) of the Act of 2017 that the pre-deposit of 10% of the tax amount is required to be deposited and there is no provision for waiver by the Appellate Authority. It is well settled that the amount to be paid as pre-deposit is for filing or entertaining the Appeal and not for realization of the tax amount . In the account(s) which have been frozen as stated in the Show Cause Notice dated 09.04.2024 and if the said accounts are still unoperational on account of the freeze, the Appellate Authority is directed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 in FORM GST DRC-06 stating inter alia that the Petitioner would require some more time to submit the reply. In the portal, the Petitioners stated in the optional column for personal hearing that the Petitioners would not avail personal hearing. Thereupon, the Respondent No. 4, who is the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax passed the Order-in-Original on 12.08.2024 which had been impugned in the instant proceedings. 4. The challenge so made in the instant proceedings by the Petitioners primarily are: (i) That in view of Section 74 (10) of the Act of 2017, the Respondent No. 4 could not have passed one single order for two Financial Years. (ii) The notice was issued by the Respondent No.3 and the order was passed by the Respondent No. 4 and it is the specific submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners that it is only the authority who has issued the Show Cause Notice could only pass the impugned order. (iii) It is the further case of the Petitioners that on 29.05.2023, a notice under Section 61 of the Act of 2017 was issued asking the petitioner to explain the discrepancies within 15 days in respect to the ITC claim for the tax period April 2022 to Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugned order which have been passed is wholly without jurisdiction. She submitted that the Petitioners herein were not afforded an additional opportunity to submit the reply to the Show Cause Notice. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that in view of Section 74 (10) of the Assam GST Act 2017, there is a requirement of passing separate orders for each Financial Year and in the instant case, there is only one order passed and as such, the impugned order so passed is wholly without jurisdiction. 7. In the backdrop of the above submissions, this Court finds it relevant to take up the issue as to whether the instant writ petition should be entertained. For that purpose, this Court finds it pertinent to refer to paragraph No. 23 of the judgment in the case of PHR Invent Educational Society (supra) which is reproduced herein below: 23. It could thus be seen that, this Court has clearly held that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person. It has been held that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without jurisdiction; or (v) where the vires of the Act is challenged; or (vi) where pure question of law is raised, this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution can exercise its jurisdiction in spite of the availability of an alternative remedy. 10. In the backdrop of the settled principles of law, if this Court takes note of the submission so made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners as regards the violation to the principles of natural justice, it is the opinion of this Court that the said submission is misconceived inasmuch as in the instant case the Petitioners were provided an opportunity to submit the reply which the Petitioners failed to do so. It is also seen that the Petitioners acted very casually to the Show Cause Notice and the proceedings initiated and this aspect would be apparent from the lackadaisical attitude shown by the Petitioners in not making any enquiry after submission of the request for further time. It is also relevant to observe that the Show Cause Notice was issued on 09.04.2024. The Petitioners request for additional time on 08.05.2024 and three months thereafter the impugned order was passed. Under such circumstances, they cannot complain o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in a position to file an appeal in view of the mandate of the pre-deposit of 10% of tax amount. This Court had also perused the Show Cause Notice dated 09.04.2024 wherein it is stated that various bank accounts of the petitioner No. 2 as well as the other bank accounts of his relatives where the funds were transferred have been frozen on 02.04.2024. Under such circumstances, a question arises as to how the Petitioners would be in a position to make the pre-deposit of 10% of the tax amount. 16. This Court had perused the materials on record and there is no mention as to how much amount/amounts lying in the bank accounts of the Petitioner No. 2 and his relatives which have been frozen. There is also no mention as to whether the Petitioners have other bank account(s). It is also clear from the mandate of Section 107 (6) (b) of the Act of 2017 that the pre-deposit of 10% of the tax amount is required to be deposited and there is no provision for waiver by the Appellate Authority. It is well settled that the amount to be paid as pre-deposit is for filing or entertaining the Appeal and not for realization of the tax amount [see Union of India Vs. Suvidhe Ltd. reported in (2016) 11 SCC 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
