M/S. Karthik Agro Industries (P) LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA

Heard the learned counsel Sri.Raghavendra B.Hanjer for the petitioner, learned counsel Sri.M.B.Kanavi, learned counsel Sri.Girish Hulmani for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and learned HCGP Sri.P.N.Hatti for respondent Nos.4 to 6. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Annexure-A is the show-cause notice issued by the respondents calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as NC: 2024:KHC-D:6369 to why the demand should not be raised as suggested in the show-cause notice. Annexure-B is the information of tax ascertained calling upon the petitioner to pay the tax as ascertained, failing which, to take necessary action in that regard. Annexure-C is the show-cause notice issued under Section 73 of the KGST Act, again calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why the demand made therein along with interest should not be made absolute.

Learned counsel submitted that as per the resolution passed in the GST meeting, the respondents have no authority to issue such show-cause notice and to make the order absolute. Under such circumstances, Annexures-A to C which are impugned in this petition are liable to be quashed.

Learned counsel submitted that even though show-cause notice and order as per Annexure-B was came to be passed, the same is without any authority. Therefore, challenging the said order, which was passed without juri iction and authority under Section 107 of the NC: 2024:KHC-D:6369 KGST Act would not arise. Learned counsel also submits that in order to challenge the order under Section 107 of the KGST Act, the petitioner is required to deposit 10% of the amount demanded and therefore, the petitioner is challenging Annexures-A to C before this court. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the petition.

Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 6 opposing the petition submitted that the show-cause notice as per Annexure-A was issued and final order under Section 73 of the KGST Act was passed as per Annexure-B and thereafter, one more show- cause notice as per Annexure-C was issued calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why the said order should not be made absolute. The petitioner has not exhausted his remedy by preferring an appeal under Section 107 of the KGST Act. Therefore, the petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

Perused the material on record. NC: 2024:KHC-D:6369

Admittedly, respondents issued show-cause notice as per Annexure-A, information of tax ascertained under Section 73 of the KGST Act as per Annexure-B and the second show-cause notice dated 25.01.2024 as per Annexure-C was issued by respondent No.

Admittedly, the order is appealable, as provided under Section 107 of the KGST Act, whereunder any person aggrieved by any decision or order, passed under the Act, can prefer an appeal. No such appeal is preferred by the petitioner solely on the ground that as per Section 107(6)(b) of the KGST Act, a sum equal to ten per cent, of the amount of tax in dispute is to be deposited, while preferring the appeal. The same cannot be a reason to invoke the writ juri iction of this court bypassing the specific provision of law under Section 107 of the KGST Act. Even though it is contended that the show-cause notice and the order were passed without authority, the grounds which are raised by the petitioner before this court seeking to quash Annexures-A to C, the same could have been raised before the appellate authority by preferring an appeal. When an efficacious NC: 2024:KHC-D:6369 remedy is available to the petitioner, I do not find any reason to exercise the writ juri iction of this court. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. JUDGE