Mmtc LTD vs. Commissioner Of CGST And Cs, Kolkata (North) And Ors
Facts
The petitioner, M.M.T.C. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order dated November 9, 2023, and a show-cause notice dated August 31, 2023, both issued under the CGST Act. The petitioner had participated in the adjudication proceedings after receiving the show-cause notice, including availing an opportunity for a personal hearing. The adjudication order detailed the facts, legal provisions, and judgments cited by the petitioner. The petitioner, having participated in the proceedings and received an order against them, then sought to challenge the show-cause notice and the adjudication order through this writ petition.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The adjudication order was found to be neither in violation of the principles of natural justice nor passed without jurisdiction, nor was it a non-speaking order. The Court also noted that no constitutional validity of any provision of law was involved, which are typically the criteria for invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226, especially when an alternative statutory remedy exists. The petitioner had participated in the adjudication proceedings, and the impugned order was an appealable order under the statute. The Court found that it could not act as an appellate authority over the adjudication order, particularly given the availability of the statutory appeal. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, given the availability of an alternative statutory remedy by way of appeal against the impugned adjudication order, and considering the petitioner's participation in the adjudication proceedings. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner sought to challenge the adjudication order and the show-cause notice. The judgment does not explicitly record the petitioner's arguments for challenging the order beyond stating they intended to challenge it after participating in the proceedings. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue authorities contended that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy and the petitioner's prior participation in the adjudication process. They argued that the adjudication order was passed after due process and was appealable.
Sections Cited
Article 226
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
WPA 3930 OF 2024 01.04.2024
Sl no. 7
M.M.T.C. Ltd. Ct no. 2
- Vs - P.M. Commissioner of CGST & CX Kolkata (North) & Ors.
Mr. Atish Dipankar Ray,
Ms. Sanjukta Ray
… for the petitioner
Mr. Vipul Kundalia,
Ms. Ekta Sinha
... for CGST authorities.
Ms. Smita Das De
... for Union of India
Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties.
By this writ petition petitioner has challenged the impugned adjudication order dated 9th November, 2023 passed under the relevant provisions of CGST Act and the impugned show-cause notice dated 31st August, 2023. It appears from record annexed to the writ petition that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of the aforesaid show-cause notice. It also appears from record that the petitioner participated in the impugned adjudication proceeding subsequent to the impugned show cause notice by availing opportunity of personal hearing. On perusal of the impugned adjudication order I find that the adjudicating authority in its order has recorded in
2 detail both facts, legal provisio
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.