M/S Arpita Motors, Bargarh vs. The Commissioner Commercial Tax (C.T) And Goods And Services Tax (G.S.T), Cuttack

Mr. Abhilash Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire proceeding instituted and culminated in adjudication order against the petitioner is under erroneous precinct. It is submitted that the Assessing Officer issued a show-cause notice dated 21.09.2023 directing the petitioner to file his reply and pay the tax within thirty days from the date of receipt of the same. The petitioner further contended that the petitioner failed to file its reply to the said show-cause notice as the same has never been served upon it. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 31.12.2023 was passed under Section 73 of the Act demanding Rs.29,73,250/- from the petitioner for the financial year 2017-18. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the order of assessment dated 31.12.2023 and the demand of Rs.29,73,250/- for the period 2017-18, the Assessing Officer held that the petitioner failed to produce supportive documents towards VAT and GST, is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner had no occasion to file its reply, as the petitioner was not served with any show show-cause notice. Therefore, on erroneous approach of the authority, the petitioner could not substantiate the discrepancies and therefore, the order impugned is liable to be interfered with.

Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the CT & GST Department-opposite parties vehemently opposed entertainment of the writ petition inasmuch as the petitioner has alternative remedy provided under Section 107 of the GST Act. Without exhausting such efficacious alternative remedy, this writ petition does not deserve to be entertained.

He submitted that the factual dispute is writ large. The appeal being extension of the original proceeding, the statutory remedy being available, the Appellate Authority is empowered to re- appreciate the evidence. No prejudice would ensue to the petitioner if it is relegated to avail the appellate remedy.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the Department. Considered the rival contentions and submissions. This Court feels that factual dispute, in fact, is involved in the matter. The petitioner is required to demonstrate each transaction that is entered in the books of accounts with reference to discrepancies indicated by the Assessing Authority.

Without entering into the disputed facts and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the contentions, this Court relegates the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority within four weeks from today to avail remedy as provided under the GST Act. Needless to observe that if the petitioner moves application for interim relief, if any, the authority concerned shall consider the same pragmatically as expeditiously as possible.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. As a result of the disposal of the writ petition, all pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.