M/S Shyam Sunder Girdhar Gopal vs. The State Of Rajasthan

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shyam Sunder Girdhar Gopal, filed three writ petitions challenging identical orders dated April 22, 2021, passed by the Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Circle Nagaur, under Section 74(1) of the Rajasthan Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 (RGST Act, 2017). These orders levied tax, interest, and penalty. The respondents, the State of Rajasthan and its tax authorities, raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions. They argued that a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act was available to the petitioner. Furthermore, they contended that the petitioner had not approached the court with clean hands, having suppressed material facts. Specifically, they pointed to the petitioner's submission of Form GST DRC-06 on April 15, 2021, where the option for personal hearing was explicitly declined.

Held

The Court held that the writ petitions were not maintainable. The primary reasoning was based on the Supreme Court's judgment in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. vs M/s Commercial Steel Ltd., which emphasizes the availability of a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act as the appropriate recourse for challenging assessment orders. The Court found that the petitioner had consciously opted out of a personal hearing by selecting 'No' in Form GST DRC-06, thereby negating the argument that the impugned orders were passed in breach of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court did not delve into the issue of concealment of material facts. The petitioner was relegated to approach the appellate authority by filing appeals against the impugned orders under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The writ petitions were dismissed, but the petitioner was explicitly permitted to avail the statutory remedy of appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petitions are maintainable when a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act is available to the petitioner for challenging the impugned assessment orders passed under Section 74(1) of the RGST Act, 2017? The petitioner argued for maintainability, likely on grounds of violation of natural justice or other exceptional circumstances. The respondents contended that the availability of the statutory appeal remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act renders the writ petitions not maintainable, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. vs M/s Commercial Steel Ltd. They also argued that the petitioner had not approached the court with clean hands, having suppressed material facts, and that the impugned orders were not passed in violation of natural justice principles, as the petitioner had consciously opted out of a personal hearing in Form GST DRC-06.