K. Shine Kumar vs. Deputy Commissioner

Facts

The appellant, K. Shine Kumar, representing Simtel Trading Corporation (P) Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order (Ext.P11) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Goods & Service Tax Department (1st respondent) under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017. The primary ground for the challenge was a violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, directing the appellant to pursue the statutory appellate remedy. This writ appeal is filed against the Single Judge's judgment. The assessment order pertains to the denial of transitional credit.

Held

The Court held that the assessment order did not violate the principles of natural justice. The records indicated that the appellant was provided with sufficient opportunity for hearing, including submitting a reply to the show cause notice and participating in a personal hearing on 20/12/2023. Therefore, the appellant's contention of a violation of natural justice was rejected. Furthermore, the Court found that the appellant's claim regarding the illegality of the denial of transitional credit based on technicalities was a question of fact. Such factual disputes cannot be adjudicated by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Following the reasoning of the learned Single Judge, the Court concluded that the appropriate remedy for the appellant was to prefer a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act. The appeal was found to have no merit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order passed by the 1st respondent violates the principles of natural justice, as contended by the appellant? 2. Whether the denial of transitional credit to the appellant, based on technicalities, is illegal and can be adjudicated by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Contentions: Petitioner/Appellant: The assessment order violates the principles of natural justice. The denial of transitional credit based on mere technicalities is illegal. Revenue/State: The appellant was given sufficient opportunity for hearing, including a reply to the show cause notice and participation in a personal hearing. The issue of denial of transitional credit is a question of fact that cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The appellant's remedy lies in preferring a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act.