M/S Unitech Automobile vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Unitech Automobile, filed a writ petition challenging an order in original passed by the respondent CGST authority. The petitioner contended that no pre-show cause notice was served. However, the respondent CGST authority produced records indicating that a pre-show cause notice was indeed served, and the petitioner had been given an opportunity for a hearing. The petitioner had even sought an adjournment for the hearing of this pre-show cause notice. The impugned order was an elaborate, 16-page document that dealt with the merits of the case. The Court noted that the case did not appear to involve any violation of the principle of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or a patent contravention of law.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The primary reason for dismissal was that the impugned order was an appellable order, and the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory remedy of appeal. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's contention regarding the non-service of a pre-show cause notice. The Court observed from the records, including the petitioner's own supplementary affidavit and the impugned adjudication order, that a pre-show cause notice was indeed served. The petitioner had also sought an adjournment for the hearing of this notice, which contradicted their present plea. The Court further noted that the impugned order was detailed, dealt with the merits of the case, and did not suffer from any patent illegality, lack of jurisdiction, or violation of the principle of natural justice that would warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the adjudicating authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order passed by the respondent CGST authority is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of the principle of natural justice due to non-service of a pre-show cause notice, as contended by the petitioner? 2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court, considering the impugned order is an appellable order and the alleged procedural irregularities do not fall within the exceptions for entertaining a writ petition? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was bad in law as no pre-show cause notice was served, thus violating the principles of natural justice. They claimed they were denied a proper opportunity to present their case. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondent CGST authority argued that a pre-show cause notice was served, and the petitioner was given an opportunity for a hearing. They presented evidence, including the petitioner's own pleadings and the impugned adjudication order, to support their claim. They also pointed out that the petitioner had sought an adjournment for the hearing of the pre-show cause notice, contradicting their claim of non-service. Furthermore, they contended that the impugned order was elaborate and dealt with the merits of the case, and the alleged procedural issues did not warrant interference by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction, especially when an appellate remedy was available.