Great INDIA Cement Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Great India Cement Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated March 17, 2026, and a summary order in Form DRC-07, both issued under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Circle Shahjahanpur. The petitioner contended that the adjudicating authority violated principles of natural justice by not providing copies of relied-upon documents and denying the opportunity to cross-examine third parties whose statements were used. The respondents, including the Union of India and the State of Rajasthan, argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal against the order.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal. The Court noted that the petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act before the appellate authority. The respondents relied on Supreme Court and High Court judgments emphasizing that writ petitions are generally not maintainable when an alternative remedy exists. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to interfere in the matter. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise all legal and factual grounds before the appellate authority. The issue regarding the violation of principles of natural justice was not decided on merits but was left to be raised before the appellate forum.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable against an order passed under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available. (Question of law) 2. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated by the adjudicating authority by failing to provide copies of relied-upon documents and denying the opportunity to cross-examine third parties. (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the adjudicating authority violated principles of natural justice by failing to provide copies of relied-upon documents and denying the opportunity to cross-examine third parties whose statements were relied upon during adjudication. They sought quashing of the order dated March 17, 2026. Respondents' arguments: The respondents contended that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal against the order dated March 17, 2026, as provided under Section 107 of the CGST Act. They relied on the Supreme Court judgment in M/s. Trillion Lead Factory Private Ltd. Vs. Superintendent of Central Tax and a Division Bench judgment of the same High Court in Tanushree Logistics Private Limited. Vs. State of Rajasthan.