Ms K.B. Patrikar Through Its Prop Kakaji Banduji Patrikar vs. The Union Of INDIA Through Its Secretary And Others

Held

The Court held that the challenge to the impugned orders on the ground of breach of the principles of natural justice was unsustainable. The Court noted that in the case of GlobeOp Financial Services (India) Private Limited, the factual matrix was different, and the authority had not addressed the petitioner's issues. However, in the present case, the Court referred to its own previous decisions in Writ Petition No.7242 of 2025 and Writ Petition No.7258 of 2025, which relied on the Apex Court judgment in State of Maharashtra and Ors. versus Greatship (India) Limited. This judgment emphasized that High Courts ought not to entertain writ petitions under Article 226 when statutory remedies of appeal are available, citing cases like Satyawati Tondon. The Court concluded that the petitioner must avail the alternate remedy available under the statute. Any observations on the factual matrix were intentionally avoided to prevent influencing the appellate forum. The Court directed that the Tribunal shall not reject the appeal, if filed, on the ground of limitation.

Facts

The petitioner, Ms K.b. Patrikar, engaged in road construction, filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original (OIO) dated 12/09/2024 and an order rejecting a rectification application dated 09/04/2025. The petitioner contended that the show-cause notice was issued for a period beyond five years and that the authority failed to provide a pre-consultation hearing. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without assigning any reasons, constituting a breach of natural justice and indicating a non-application of mind. The petitioner claimed to have submitted all relevant documents, including R.A. bills and work orders, seeking exemption under Item No. 13, but the authority instead invoked Item No. 12 without proper justification. The respondent-Department argued that the petitioner had an equally efficacious alternative remedy of appeal before the Tribunal and that the issue of pre-consultation was not raised earlier.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Order-in-Original dated 12/09/2024 and the order rejecting the rectification application dated 09/04/2025 were passed in breach of the principles of natural justice, specifically concerning the lack of a pre-consultation hearing and the absence of reasoned orders, as contemplated under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act, 2017? 2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the existence of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal before the Tribunal? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the authority failed to provide a pre-consultation hearing and passed the impugned orders without assigning any reasons, violating principles of natural justice and showing non-application of mind. Reliance was placed on judgments like GlobeOp Financial Services (India) Private Limited and Jay Mahakali Industrial Service. The petitioner contended that a complete breach of natural justice is an exception to the rule of exhausting alternative remedies. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent argued that the petitioner has an equally efficacious alternative remedy of appeal before the Tribunal and that the writ petition was filed to avoid paying 7.5% of the assessed liability. The respondent contended that the point of pre-consultation was not raised earlier and thus waived. They also argued that the authority did apply its mind and that the petitioner failed to provide all necessary documents. Reliance was placed on the judgment in Oberoi Constructions Ltd.