Somany Ceramics Limited vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Somany Ceramics Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated 27.04.2024, passed by the Proper Officer under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017/DGST Act, 2017. This order pertained to the tax period April 2018 to March 2019. The petitioner contended that its reply to the show cause notice was rejected without calling for any documents, despite the issues raised. The petitioner argued that the rejection was based on the alleged lack of supporting documents and inability to address the issues, but no opportunity was given to provide them.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the existence of an efficacious statutory appeal remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017/DGST Act, 2017. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's grievance that its reply was rejected without being asked for documents. Consequently, the Court clarified that the petitioner is at liberty to furnish all relevant documents before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority was directed to consider these documents, even if they were not presented before the Adjudicating Officer. The petition was disposed of with these observations, allowing the petitioner to pursue its appellate remedies. The Court also granted a two-week window for filing the appeal, with the Appellate Authority to consider it without being influenced by any delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an efficacious statutory appeal remedy is available under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017/DGST Act, 2017? 2. Whether the Proper Officer erred in rejecting the petitioner's reply without calling for relevant documents and providing an opportunity to address the issues raised? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that its reply was rejected without proper consideration and without seeking necessary documentation. They asserted that the rejection was arbitrary as no documents were requested from them to substantiate their response. Revenue's contentions: The respondents, Union of India and others, did not file a formal reply to the writ petition. However, the Court noted that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal.