9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 501X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suant to the issuance of recovery notice dated 27.02.2024. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order has been issued without issuing a show cause notice u/s 73 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (in short "CGST Act") and without scheduling a personal hearing in the matter. Even the summary of show cause notice was issued in Form GST DRC-01 through e-mail, which is not a prescribed mode of service. That petitioner gained knowledge about the issuance of the impugned order pursuant to the issuance of impugned notice for recovery, on 29.02.2024. Further, it has been submitted that, even otherwise, the assessment qua issue adjudicated in the impugned order dated 11.01.2021 has been re-opened by the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same deserves to be dismissed as the petitioner has directly rushed to this Hon'ble Court without exhausting the statutory efficacious alternative remedy of approaching the competent authority against the order impugned as per the provisions of section 107 of the Chhattisgarh Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost circumspection. 6. Before dilating on the ground urged by the writ petitioner, it is appropriate to deal with the issue about the situations when despite the availability of an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy, a writ petition under Article 226 can be entertained. Chapter XVIII of the CGST Act, 2017 contains the provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatute which has been invoked and has given rise to the action impugned in the writ petition ought not to be made in a routine manner, yet, the mere fact that the petitioner before the High Court, in a given case, has not pursued the alternative remedy available to him/it cannot be construed as a ground for its dismissal. It has been observed that the High Courts, bearing in mind the facts of each particular case, have a discretion whether to entertain a writ petition or not. One of the self-imposed restrictions on the exercise of power under Article 226 that has evolved through judicial precedents is that the High Courts should normally not entertain a writ petition, where an effective and efficacious alternative remedy is available. At th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reme Court of India in the case titled Commissioner of Income Tax and others vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, reported in [2014] 1 SCC 603, has observed as under:- 11. Before discussing the fact proposition, we would notice the principle of law as laid down by this Court. It is settled law that nonentertainment of petitions under writ jurisdiction by the High Court when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule of self-imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 despite the existence of an alternative remedy. However, the High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Kurien E. Kalathil" 2000 (6) SCC 293; "A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu vs. S. Chellappan" 2000 (7) SCC 695; "L.L. Sudhakar Reddy vs.State of A.P." 2001 (6) SCC 634; "Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sanstha vs. State of Maharashtra" 2001 (8) SCC 509; "Pratap Singh vs. State of Haryana" 2002 (7) SCC 484; and "GKN Driveshaft (India) Ltd. vs. ITO", 2003 (1) SCC 72). 10. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognized some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy i.e. where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoking the provisions which are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Versus M/s Commercial Steel Limited reported in 2021 7 SCR 660, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that respondents therein had a statutory remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act. Relevant paras are reproduced herein below:- 12. In the present case, none of the above exceptions was established. There was, in fact, no violation of the principles of natural justice since a notice was served on the person in charge of the conveyance. In this backdrop, it was not appropriate for the High Court to entertain a writ petition. The assessment of facts would have to be carried out by the appellate authority. As a matter of fact, the High Court has while doing this exercise proceeded on the basis of surmises. However, since we are inclined to re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
