Money & Company vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of State Tax

The grievance of the petitioner is that, the provisions of Section 42(3) read with Rule 36 of the CGST Rules has not been complied with by the assessing officer while issuing Ext.P4. According to the learned Counsel, non compliance with Section 42(3) of the Act rendered Ext.P4 perverse, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner also raised a WP(C) NO. 10467 OF 2022 3 contention that a reasonable opportunity of hearing was not granted before issuing Ext.P4, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

The learned Senior Government Pleader, on the other hand, contended that the contentions raised by the petitioner before this Court are all matters which can be effectively canvassed before the appellate authority constituted under Section 107 of the CGST Act. She invited my attention to the observations in the impugned order stating that the registered person was provided an opportunity of being heard on 02.03.2022 and argued that there was no violation of principles of natural justice.

Having regard to the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on a perusal of the provisions of Section 42(3) of the Act as well as the observations in the impugned order, I am of the WP(C) NO. 10467 OF 2022 4 view that the petitioner has an effective remedy before the appellate authority. The circumstances of the case, including the grant of opportunity for hearing before issuing the impugned order, does not warrant an interference of this Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India.

Hence, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed, reserving the liberty of the petitioner to raise all contentions advanced in this writ petition before the appellate authority. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to pursue his statutory remedy, this writ petition is dismissed. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AMV/28/03//2022