M/S. J.K.Jewellers. Puri vs. Central Board Of It And Customs, New Delhi

Challenging the show-cause notice dated 06.01.2025 issued under Sections 130(2) and 122(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (collectively, “the GST Act”) and order dated 18.02.2025 imposing penalty under Section 122 and fine under Section 130 of the said GST Act, the Petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition invoking extraordinary juri iction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Mr. Rudra Prasad Kar, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Debasish Hazra, 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 Petitioner appeared before the authority concerned on various dates vide Annexure-4 series and produced books of accounts and cooperated

Learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner having appeared before the authority has explained each entry contained in the books of accounts vis-à-vis the materials seized by the authority. Therefore, the authority on erroneous approach of the authority that the Petitioner could not substantiate the discrepancies is liable to be interfered with. Therefore, the order impugned herein needs indulgence of this Court as huge demand of penalty has been imposed in lieu of confiscation.

He further urged that unless this Court protects the innocent Petitioner, the authority shall proceed with confiscation proceeding which would have serious impact on the business.

Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the CT & GST Department-Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 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 Senior Counsel as well as Standing Counsel. Considered the rival contentions. This Court feels that factual dispute, in fact, is involved in the matter. The Petitioner is required to demonstrate each

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.