Pravin Kumar Darolia vs. Additional Commissioner, Centrla Tax CGST And Cx Kolkata North Commissionerate And Ors

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The reasoning was twofold: Firstly, the impugned order of the appellate authority was appealable under the statute, and the petitioner, who was not the primary respondent in the appellate proceedings, had not exhausted the statutory remedy of appeal. Secondly, the Court found the petitioner's ground for challenging the order, which was the alleged non-service of notice on him personally as a director, to be a flimsy technical ground, especially since notice was served on the company. The Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition on these grounds. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition is not the appropriate remedy to challenge an appealable order on a technical ground of non-service of notice, particularly when the petitioner is not the primary party and the statutory remedy of appeal is available. The Court dismissed the writ petition but clarified that this dismissal would not prevent the petitioner from availing any other remedy available under the law.

Facts

The petitioner, Pravin Kumar Darolia, a Director of M/s. Kolkata Bricks Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated October 12, 2021, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), GST. The petitioner's challenge was based on the ground that no notice of hearing was served upon him personally, despite him being a director of the appellant/respondent company in the appellate proceedings. The respondent CGST authority contended that notice of hearing was served upon the company, and the Director was not a party to the original proceedings. The petitioner sought to challenge the appellate order on this procedural technicality.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the impugned order of the appellate authority is appealable under the statute, and the petitioner, who is not the primary party against whom the order was passed, is seeking to challenge it on a procedural ground? 2. Whether the petitioner has established a case for entertaining a writ petition on the ground of non-service of notice, considering that notice was allegedly served on the company and the Director was not a party to the original proceedings? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the writ petition was maintainable as he was not served with a notice of hearing by the appellate authority, which he claimed was a flimsy technical ground for challenging the order. He asserted that as a director, he should have been personally notified. Revenue's Contention: The respondent CGST authority argued that notice of hearing was served upon the company, which was the party to the appeal. They further contended that the Director was not a party in the said proceeding and that the impugned order of the appellate authority was appealable under the statute, implying that a writ petition was not the appropriate remedy.