M/S Goswami And Sons vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Section 107 of the BGST Act. The Court noted that Section 107(4) of the BGST Act provides for condonation of delay in filing appeals. Furthermore, the Court took into account the Supreme Court's directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, which extended the period of limitation due to the pandemic. This extension meant that an appeal could have been filed on or before 30.05.2022, or even 30.06.2022 if a longer period was provided in the statute. Since the petitioner failed to avail this statutory remedy, the Court found no reason to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the lack of opportunity to be heard, as the primary reason for dismissal was the availability of an alternative remedy.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Goswami and Sons, is challenging an order dated 18.01.2022, passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act. The order was preceded by a notice under Section 61 of the CGST Act (ASMT-10) due to a discrepancy in the petitioner's return. The petitioner failed to respond to the ASMT-10 notice, leading to the issuance of a DRC-01 notice and subsequently the impugned order under Section 73. The petitioner did not avail the appellate remedy available under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax (BGST) Act, which allows for condonation of delay in filing appeals.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 18.01.2022, passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, is liable to be set aside on the ground that the petitioner was not afforded an adequate opportunity of being heard before its passing? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argues that the order was passed without providing them with a proper opportunity to be heard, thus violating principles of natural justice. They highlight their failure to respond to the DRC-01 notice as a consequence of not being properly apprised or given sufficient time. Revenue's contention: The respondents contend that the petitioner was issued a notice under Section 61 (ASMT-10) regarding discrepancies, and upon failure to rectify these, a DRC-01 notice was issued, followed by the impugned order under Section 73. They assert that the petitioner failed to respond to these notices and also failed to avail the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the BGST Act, which includes provisions for condonation of delay. The respondents rely on the Supreme Court's orders in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 regarding the extension of limitation due to the pandemic.