M/S Shark Mines And Minerals PVT.LTD, Bbsr vs. The Chief Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Bbsr

Facts

M/s. Shark Mines & Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Orissa High Court challenging a Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated September 17, 2025, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Bhubaneswar-1 Division. The SCN, issued under Section 73 of the GST Act, pertains to the financial year 2021-22 and alleges availment of ineligible input tax credit due to the supplier's non-furnishing of GSTR-3B returns. The petitioner argued that the SCN was arbitrary, as they were bona fide recipients, and that their response to a prior notice (Form GST ASMT-10 dated April 30, 2025) was not properly considered. The revenue opposed the writ petition, stating the petitioner had an opportunity to reply to the SCN.

Held

The Court declined to entertain the writ petition challenging the Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued under Section 73 of the GST Act. Citing precedents from this Court and the Supreme Court, including Mitambini Mishra Vs. Union of India and others, the Court held that writ petitions are generally not maintainable for challenging SCNs when an alternative remedy of filing a reply before the adjudicating authority is available. The Court reasoned that the proper officer has the competence to initiate proceedings under Section 73 and that the petitioner's claim of arbitrary action and lack of application of mind can be addressed during the adjudication process. The ratio is that a writ petition is not the appropriate forum to challenge an SCN if an alternative statutory remedy exists. The petitioner was granted liberty to submit their reply to the SCN within two weeks, and the Proper Officer was directed to consider the reply and evidence, if any, and pass an appropriate order after hearing the petitioner, provided the proceedings under Section 73 had not culminated in a final order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable challenging a Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act/Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, when the petitioner has an alternative remedy to reply to the SCN before the proper officer? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the SCN was arbitrary and issued without proper application of mind, as their response to a prior notice (GST ASMT-10) was not considered. They argued that they were bona fide recipients and the SCN aimed to deny their legitimate claim for input tax credit under Section 16 of the GST Act. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue argued that the writ petition should not be entertained as the SCN was issued by a competent authority under Section 73 of the GST Act, and the petitioner has an adequate alternative remedy to furnish a reply to the SCN before the proper officer.