Writ Petition Dismissed: Assessee Directed to Pursue Statutory Appeal Remedy Against Adjudication Order
Summary in Key Points:
- Adjudication Order Challenged: The petitioner challenged an adjudication order passed under the CGST and IGST Acts through a writ petition.
- Statutory Remedy Available: The court highlighted the existence of a statutory appeal mechanism under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
- Petitioner’s Argument: The petitioner argued that the adjudication order was passed without a hearing, justifying a writ petition.
- Court’s Emphasis on Appeal: The court emphasized that the availability of an efficacious statutory appeal made exercising writ jurisdiction unnecessary.
- Liberty to Appeal: The writ petition was dismissed, but the petitioner was granted the liberty to pursue the statutory appeal remedy.
Decision:
The High Court prioritized the established statutory appeal process over its writ jurisdiction. It held that even if the petitioner’s claim of denial of a hearing was true, the existence of an alternate remedy made the writ petition unjustifiable. This decision underscores the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before invoking the court’s extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Bekem Infra Projects (P.) Ltd.
v.
Deputy Commissioner of State Tax
Mangesh S. Patil and Shailesh P. Brahme, JJ.
WRIT PETITION NO.11879 OF 2024
OCTOBER 23, 2024
Sham Walve, Ms. Akshara Sharad Madake, Devashish G. Godbole and Prasad Nagargoje, Advs. for the Petitioner. M.M. Nerlikar, Addl. G.P. for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. Leave granted to amend the name of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is challenging the adjudication order passed under Section 73 (9) of the M.G.S.T. Act, 2017, the C.G.S.T. Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the I.G.S.T. Act, 2017 and the allied enactments.
3. In the light of availability of statutory remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (C.G.S.T. Act), it would be appropriate for the petitioner to resort to it being a statutory remedy which operates as a bar for exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. The learned advocate for the petitioner would emphasize that the adjudication order has been passed without extending any opportunity of hearing and that should enable this Court to exercise the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He would also advert our attention to the communication, whereby, time was sought for responding to the show cause notice but it was not conceded to.
5. We are afraid, in the wake of the fact that an efficacious remedy of statutory appeal is available to the petitioner, accepting for the sake of arguments that his request seeking time to respond to the show cause notice was not considered favourably, we do not see any reason to make exception and exercise the power under Article 226 of the Constitution.
6. The appellate authority would be able even to go into the stand of the petitioner of breach of principles of natural justice while passing the adjudication order.
7. The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to resort to the statutory remedy.