Sabita Choudhury vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST,Odisha,Cuttack

The relief claimed in the instant writ petition is sought to be expanded by making the submissions taking shelter under different provisions of law and the judgment pronounced by this Court in case of Arupa Nanda Dhal, a proprietorship concern v. Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal) and Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Ori 516. The relief as it appears is sought in the instant writ petition; firstly, to quash the impugned order dated 24th October, 2024 to the extent temporary GST Registration Number given to the petitioner and the second prayer relates to modifying the said order by inserting the original GST Registration Number so that the petitioner may deposit the demand.

The reasonable inference which can be gathered from the aforesaid two reliefs claimed in the instant writ petition that the order dated 24th October, 2024 is required to be quashed as it has been passed in relation to a temporary GST Registration Number and so far as the determination of the tax liability and the other statutory liabilities are concerned, has not been disputed in such manner as the modification was sought only in relation to a GST Registration Number.

At the time of an argument, it is sought to be contended that the proceeding under Section 63 of the GST Act is required to be initiated upon service of the show cause notice, which is distinct from the issuance of the show cause notice. It is sought to be contended that a reasonable opportunity of hearing as postulated under the proviso appended to Section 63 supports the aforesaid notion and, in fact, the Division Bench of this Court in Arupa Nanda Dhal (supra) has made a distinction between the issuance of the notice and the service

The appellate Court can go into the factual aspect and may take a decision on the basis of the material so produced before it and, therefore, we do not find any justification in not exhausting the statutory remedy provided in the statute.

We are conscious that the power of judicial review is not restricted nor can be abridged through a legislative fiat as it is ingrained and inhered in the basic structure of the Constitution. The Courts have imposed self-restraint in entertaining and exercising the power of judicial review, once the Court finds that the statutory remedy is adequate, efficient and can address all the issues so raised before it.

It is a discretion of the writ Court to entertain the writ petition despite the statutory remedy provided therein and it is also open to the writ Court to refuse to exercise such discretion and relegate the parties to the statutory forum.

Since the questions are essentially a question of fact and a law to be infused therewith, we do not think that the writ Court should interfere with the order assailed in the instant writ petition.

It is open to the petitioner to approach the statutory forum as permissible in law. For abundant precaution, it is hereby made clear in the event the appellate authority intends to decide the matter on merit, all points which are agitated in the instant writ petition are kept open.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.