Court Cannot Interfere When Alternative Remedy Under CGST Act Is Available, Unless Extraordinary Circumstances Arise: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court has reiterated that while writ petitions can be entertained even when alternative statutory remedies are available, the same should only be done under extraordinary circumstances involving a breach of the principles of natural justice or when the procedure required for a decision has not been adopted.In this regard, a Single-Judge Bench of Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal held,“…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in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoking the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in “Thansingh Nathmal” and Titaghur Paper Mills” case and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for the redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation”Facts:The Court was dealing with a writ petition challenging a demand order (impugned order) dated 11.01.2021 along with Form DRC-07 dated 15.01.2021 issued by Respondent 3.It was the case of the petitioner that the impugned order was passed without issuing show-cause notice under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and without scheduling a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing. Even the summary of show cause notice was not issued in the prescribed form. The petitioner only came to know about the impugned order after the issuance of the impugned notice on 29.02.2024.Thereafter, the petitioner submitted that the tax issue in the order dated 11.01.2021 was reopened by Respondent 3, who issued two further notices—on 05.01.2024 (Form GST ASMT-10) and another on 30.01.2024 (Form GST DRC-01). The petitioner responded to these notices and took part in the proceedings. After reviewing the petitioner's replies, Respondent 3 decided to drop the demand related to that issue in entirety. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court as Respondent 3 had neither officially withdrawn the order dated 11.01.2021, nor the recovery notice dated 27.02.2024.Opposing this, the State argued that the petitioner had statutory efficacious alternative remedies available and he had approached the High Court without exhausting the said alternative remedies.Findings:At the outset, the Court examined sub-section (1) of Section 107 of the CGST Act, which enacts that a person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under the CGST Act, 2017 or the SGST Act, 2017, by an Adjudicating Authority, may appeal to the Appellate Authority within three months from the date on which the said order was communicated to the person. In the present case, the Court noted that the original order was issued on 11.01.2021 and 15.01.2021, and the same was appealable under sub-section (1) of Section 107.With respect to the maintainability of the writ petition, the Court held that the petitioner had failed to establish that the present case was an exceptional case that warranted the Court to interfere by issuing writ, despite the availability of an alternative remedy.The Court further held,“The statutory prescriptions contained in the Statute, that is, the CGST Act 2017, makes it evident that the notices or orders passed under the provisions of Section 73 of CGST Act, 2017 can be served upon the noticee/assessee under any of the modes prescribed therein and such notice or order shall be deemed to have been served on the date on which it is tendered or published. Service of the notice or the order, as the case may be, under Section 73 , CGST Act, 2017, by giving or tendering it directly or by a messenger to the taxable person or the addressee, etc. in the manner, is a statutorily permissible mode of service. By making the notice or the order available on the common portal is another statutorily permissible mode of service.”Disposing of the writ petition, the Court held that non- entertainment of the writ petition shall not preclude the writ petitioner from approaching the statutory appellate authority.Case Details:Case Number: WPT No. 84 of 2024 Case Title: Mayasheel Retail India Limited v. State Of ChhattisgarhClick Here To Read/Download Order

Court Cannot Interfere When Alternative Remedy Under CGST Act Is Available, Unless Extraordinary Circumstances Arise: Chhattisgarh High Court

Saahas Arora

Tags