Jmt Global Cargo Service vs. The Assistant Commissioner ,CGST And Cx, Shibpur Division

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. Firstly, it noted the substantial delay of over one and a half years in filing the writ petition after the impugned order in original was passed. Secondly, the Court observed that the impugned order was an appellable order, and the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court also found that the principle of natural justice was not violated, as the petitioner was given three opportunities for a hearing, which they failed to avail. The reasons in the adjudication order were based on facts and material evidence, which are not within the purview of a writ court's examination. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioners, JMT Global Cargo Service & Anr., challenged an order in original dated May 24, 2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX, Shibpur Division, Howrah. The writ petition was filed on November 24, 2023, more than one and a half years after the impugned order was passed. The petitioners were provided with three opportunities for a hearing on March 28, 2022, May 12, 2022, and May 19, 2022, but failed to appear on any of these dates. The court noted that the reasons provided in the adjudication order were based on facts and material evidence, which are not typically subject to appreciation by a writ court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the delay in filing and the existence of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order in original, as per Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. 2. Whether the principle of natural justice was violated by the respondent authority. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner implicitly argued for the maintainability of the writ petition by approaching the High Court, suggesting that the circumstances warranted direct intervention. They likely contended that the delay, if any, was excusable or that the order suffered from fundamental flaws. Respondent's arguments: The respondent CGST Authority argued that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the significant delay in filing and the availability of an alternative appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. They also contended that the principle of natural justice was not violated, as the petitioner was granted multiple opportunities for hearing but failed to appear.