M/S Tilak Ram Babu Ram PVT LTD vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Held

The Court held that no case was made out for interference in writ jurisdiction, primarily because an appeal lies against the order passed by the revenue authority. The Court found that the petitioner had not filed a reply to the show cause notice and had not made any payment, leading to the impugned order. The ratio decidendi is that writ jurisdiction is not to be exercised when an effective alternative remedy, such as an appeal, is available to the aggrieved party. The Court dismissed the writ petition but granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal within 15 days. If an appeal is filed within this period, it is to be decided expeditiously, preferably within three months. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Tilak Ram Babu Ram Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017. The State of Haryana and others were the respondents. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 29.09.2023, following an audit conducted under Section 65 for the period 2017-18, which resulted in a demand for outstanding dues. The petitioner reportedly did not file a reply to the show cause notice or make any payment. Consequently, an order was passed on 08.11.2023, and a demand summary was issued on Form GST DRC-07 on the same date.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when an alternative remedy of appeal is available against the impugned order under the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that no reasons were supplied for the order passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner did not present any arguments regarding the merits of the demand or the audit findings. The respondents, the State of Haryana and others, did not present any arguments in the judgment. The Court's decision primarily hinges on the availability of an alternative remedy.